MEHTA HAVENS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS WARD 2(3), CHENNAI

Since the issues raised in these appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear all the appeals together and pass common order for the sake of convenience.

In all these appeals, the assessee raised 11 grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) justified in confirming the quantification of short payment of TDS and interest exparte of the assessee.

1. 4. At the outset, the ld. AR Shri G. Tarun, Advocate brought to our notice that the assessee could not file details as contained in Form 26A before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC and the assessee is now collected all details of Form 26A from various parties. The ld. AR prayed that one more opportunity may be afforded to the assessee in remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the fresh evidence consisting of Form 26A in the interest of justice. The ld. AR placed on record along with petition under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, the details of Form 26A for all the quarters concerning the relevant assessment years from page 3 to 20 of the paper book.

The ld. DR Shri Vinod, JCIT vehemently opposed in remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer as the assessee could not avail many opportunities given by the ld. CIT(A) in the first appellate proceedings. He argued that the matter should be remanded to the file of the ld. CIT(A) instead of the Assessing Officer, for that he brought to our notice the 1st proviso to section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and argued that the proviso was inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 is applicable only from assessment year 2013-14, but, not prior date thereto.