Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal without providing an opportunity of being heard. The appeal concerned disallowances of interest payments and contract payments due to non-deduction of TDS.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order lacked proper adjudication and did not frame specific points of deduction as required by Section 250(6) of the Act, despite the assessee filing written submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for appropriate adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity of being heard and in confirming the disallowances made by the AO for non-deduction of TDS.
Sections Cited
40(a)(ia), 143(3), 194A, 194C, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
O R D E R Per : Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC)
Delhi’s DIN & order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1061191048(1) dated 20.02.2024, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. the instant appeal:
“1. The National Faceless Appeal Centre Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred in dismissing the appeal without providing due opportunity of being heard. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, order passed by the CIT(A) is unjustified, illegal, against the provision of the Act and against the principles of natural justice.
The below grounds are without prejudice to ground no 1: 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of disallowing interest paid to BMW Finance Services Private Limited amounting to Rs.1,80,622/ on the grounds that TDS under section 194A has not been deducted. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. disallowance made of Rs. 1,80,622/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act ought to be deleted.
The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of disallowing contract payments amounting to Rs. 7,59,751/-on the grounds that TDS under section 194C has not been deducted. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, disallowance made of Rs. 7,59,751/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act ought to be deleted.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to vehement rival submissions against/in support of both the learned lower authorities’ findings invoking section 40(a)(ia) disallowance(s) on account of the assessee’s alleged failure in not deducting TDS u/s. 194(A) regarding interest payments made on car loan and contractual payments; involving varying sums respectively. Learned departmental representative vehemently submitted that the CIT/NFAC herein had indeed afforded numerous opportunities to the assessee which the latter failed to avail. We note in this factual matrix even if the Revenue’s foregoing technical argument is accepted, the fact remains that the learned CIT/NFAC’s findings in pages 7 to 8 have neither framed any points of deduction nor is there any detailed adjudication there upon as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. This is despite the fact that the assessee filed written submissions/statement of facts admittedly in course of the lower appellate proceedings. Faced with this situation, we restore the instant appeal back to the learned CIT/NFAC for its appropriate adjudication as per law subject to a rider that it shall be assessee’s risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22.07.2024.