MEHTA HAVENS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS WARD 2(3), CHENNAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, including the decision of the Delhi High Court, and decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for all assessment years.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed nine appeals against the order of the CIT(A) that confirmed the quantification of short payment of TDS and interest ex-parte. The assessee's counsel argued that they could not file Form 26A details before the CIT(A) and prayed for a remand to the Assessing Officer to consider fresh evidence.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the quantification of short payment of TDS and interest ex-parte, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township (P.) Ltd.177 citing61 Taxmann.com 45 · 2015 · HC
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish
आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These nine appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate common order all dated 20.05.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment years 2008-09 [26Q-Q4], 2009-10 [26Q-Q4], 2012-13 [26Q-Q4], 2013-14 [26Q-Q1, 26Q-Q2, 26Q-Q3 & 26Q-Q4] and 2014-15[26Q-Q1 & 26Q-Q2].
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.
In reply, the ld. AR submits that many High Courts held the said proviso is retrospective and the decisions are placed on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases for AY 2009-10 & 2012-13 and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi) along with other appeals for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15, we deem it proper the remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for his consideration in terms of the fresh evidence filed before us by way of paper book containing the details of various parties in Form 26A and pass order in accordance with law. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside for all the assessment years under appeal and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 23rd August, 2024 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 201
- Sbi, (Erstwhile Sbbj), Baran vs ITO (TDS), KotaITA 143/JPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Santosh Kumar Bhogi, Visakhapatnam vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 253/VIZ/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Raj Construction, Vadodara vs The ITO, Ward TDS-2, VadodaraITA 327/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Himanshusinhji Jyotendrasinhji Jadeja… vs DCIT/ACIT Circle-1(1), RKT, RajkotITA 325/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Jagadish Panchal, Udaipur vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 314/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026