ASHWINI DHIR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 1(1), MUMBAI

Briefly the facts are, the assessee, an individual, is engaged in the activity of scripts and serial writer and producer. The Assessing Officer while verifying the accounts of the assessee having noticed that 2 Shri Ashwini Dhir assessee had debited certain expenditures which are subject to TDS provision but the assessee had not deducted tax at source while making such payments, issued a show cause notice under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act on 21.03.2014. In response to the said notice, assessee furnished his reply stating therein that certain payments are towards reimbursement of expenses incurred by the payees, hence, TDS provisions are not applicable. In respect of other payments assessee stated to have deducted tax at source. The Assessing Officer, however, did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and alleging short deduction of tax at source under section 194J on payments for serial expenses, set designing expenses and shooting expenses the Assessing Officer passed an order treating the assessee as an assessee in default under section 201(1) and raised a demand of `1,23,09,870/– under section 201(1) and levied interest of `44,31,553/– under section 201(1A) of the Act. Assessee challenged the aforesaid order passed by Assessing Officer before the Commissioner (Appeals). As observed by the learned Commssioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, in spite of repeated opportunity being given to the assessee no one appeared on behalf of the assessee for hearing of the appeal. Instead, adjournments were sought repeatedly by different set of Chartered Accountants who even did not have valid power of attorney executed in favour of them by the 3 Shri Ashwini Dhir assessee. Therefore, learned Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded to dispose of assessee’s appeal ex–parte by upholding the order passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the materials on record. The short submission made before us on behalf of the assessee is, one more opportunity may be extended to the assessee to represent his case on merits before the Commissioner (Appeals). As could be seen, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed off assessee’s appeal ex–parte, since, repeated adjournments were sought and no one appeared to argue the appeal on merits. He has also alleged that Chartered Accountants who sought adjournment on behalf of the assessee were also not duly authorised by the assessee. However, considering the submissions of the learned A.R. and also keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to represent his case before the First Appellate Authority. However, considering the fact that the assessee was not too diligent in pursuing his appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), we direct the assessee to pay cost of `10,000/– for restoration of his appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The aforesaid cost of `10,000/– should be deposited by the assessee in Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within seven days from the receipt of this order. On furnishing the proof of payment of `10,000/–

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31.10.2017