THAZHAYIL NIDHI LIMITED,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO (TDS), ALAPPUZHA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 323/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 January 2024AY 2019-20Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Manohohan Das (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the absence of a reasonable opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice and Section 250(1) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an order concerning tax deductible at source was dismissed by the CIT(A). The assessee's primary grievance was the lack of an opportunity for a hearing before the first appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed the order without providing the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201,Section 201(1A),Section 250(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manohohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Abhijith Satheesh, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Hearing: 25.01.2024Pronounced: 25.01.2024

Appellant by: Shri Abhijith Satheesh, CA Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 25.01.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the dismissal of it’s appeal contesting the assessment of it’s tax liability qua tax deductible at source for fy 2018- 19, relevant to Assessment Year 2019-20, vide order under sections 201/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 31.08s.2022, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)], vide his order dated 09.03.2023. The assessee has also filed a stay petition qua it’s captioned appeal.

2.

The assessee’s only grievance before us, per the arguments advanced by it’s learned counsel, Shri Abhijith, is the absence of opportunity of hearing thereto by the first appellate authority in passing the impugned order. Towards this, on being required to by the Bench, he would take us meticulously through the impugned order, which is, we afraid, sub silentio in the matter. Though Shri Das, the ld. CIT-DR,

(AY : 2019-20) SA No. 65/Coch/2023 Thazhayil Nidhi Ltd. v. ITO would make reference to the show cause notice dated 04.02.2022, referred to at page 17 of the impugned order, the same, as apparent, is by the Assessing Officer (AO), and responded to by the assessee, represented through the same counsel.

3.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 Provision of a reasonable opportunity of hearing is a principle of natural justice, integral to judicial determination, also enshrined in s. 250(1) of the Act. An order in violation thereof does not meet the requirement of law, as indeed of justice. The matter shall require travelling back to the state where the irregularity intervened. We, accordingly, setting aside the impugned order, restore the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for a decision afresh on merits after allowing due opportunity of hearing to the parties before him, per a speaking order, taking into account their arguments /contentions raised before him and, needless to add, in accordance with law.

3.2 Before parting with this order, we may clarify that the sole ground raised before us does not appear in the ‘Grounds of Appeal’ forming part of Form 36, the memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal, duly perused during hearing. The same was, nevertheless, admitted orally in pursuance to r.11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and the parties heard on that basis.

3.3 We decide accordingly. The assessee’s stay application, in view of our having decided the appeal, becomes infructuous. 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay application, dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the conclusion of the hearing. Sd/- Sd/- (Manomohan Das) (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Cochin, Dated: January 25, 2024 2

More judgments on Section 201

All 1,566 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →