HARYANA POWER GENERATION LIMITED,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3757/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 December 2025AY 2011-2012Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal without considering the material on record and without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the order of the CIT(A) confirming a demand of Rs. 30 lakhs for non-deduction of tax at source under section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed the order in haste without considering the merits or legal position.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly considered the material on record and afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing the order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 194C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.12.2025Pronounced: 11.12.2025

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the JCIT(A)-6, Gurgaon dated 06.05.2025 pertaining to A.Y 2011-12. 2. The solitary grievance raised by assessee out of 5 grounds of appeal is that the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the demand raised u/s 201(1)/201(1A)

1.

[A.Y 2011-12] Haryana Power Generation of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] amounting to Rs. 30 lakhs for non-deduction of tax at source u/s 194C of the Act.

3. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted vehemently that the first appellate authority has passed the order in haste without considering the merits of the case and without taking into consideration the legal position. The ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be set aside for fresh adjudication.

3.

Per contra, the ld. DR fairly conceded that the appeal be set aside to the CIT(A).

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. It is apparent from record that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal without considering the material on record. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee ought to have been given sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the light of additional evidences. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh after considering all the documents/evidence and affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Page 2 of 4 [A.Y 2011-12] Haryana Power Generation The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information/ documents as required by the ld. CIT(A).

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes. [ The order is pronounced in the open court on 11.12.2025.

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →