HOTEL GREAT MARATHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CPC (TDS), UTTAR PRADESH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3352/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 June 20173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be served by remitting the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to reconsider the issue afresh after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee is in appeal against an order passed under Section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which confirmed a demand for default. The CIT(A) passed an ex parte decision without granting the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an order without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 200A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya, AM & Shri Ravish Sood, JM

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal
Hearing: 22.06.2017Pronounced: 30.06.2017

O R D E R

Per Shamim Yahya, AM

1.

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against order of CIT(A) dated 06.04.2015 and pertains to assessment year 2013-2014.

2.

The assessee in this case is in appeal against order u/s 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 passed by the Income Tax Officer (TDS) making a demand of Rs.42,270 for the default committed by the assessee.

3.

Upon assessee’s appeal, the learned CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in an ex parte decision. Now the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

2 ITA No.3352/Mum/2015. M/s.Hotel Great Maratha.

4.

The learned Counsel of the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing order without giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. In this regard, the learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that adjournment petition was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) wherein assessee has pleaded that since the Counsel was out of India, Sri Lanka, adjournment may be granted. Furthermore, the learned Counsel pleaded that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by several decisions including a batch of 16 appeals, decided by Pune Benches of the Tribunal in & Anr. Vide order dated 23.09.2016.

5.

Upon hearing both the Counsel and perusing the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice will be served if the matter is remitted to the file of the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.

6.

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 200A

All 4,379 judgments and leading authorities on Section 200A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →