SANOFI INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT TDS RG 1, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had given only one opportunity, which was not availed. Considering the interest of natural justice and that factual aspects were not considered, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
What were the facts?
The assessee belatedly remitted TDS amounts, leading to demands under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A). The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte for non-appearance.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) should have considered the factual aspects presented by the assessee despite their ex-parte dismissal, and whether natural justice requires another opportunity.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Ramlal Negi (JM)
O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 4.12.2014 passed by learned CIT(A)-59, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2008-09.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee and hence we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.
We heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. The Assessing Officer has treated the assessee in default u/s. 201(1) for remitting TDS amount belatedly. Accordingly he raised demand u/s 201(1) and charged interest u/s 201(1A). The appeal filed by the assessee challenging the said order was dismissed by learned CIT(A) ex-parte, since the assessee did not appear before him.
2 Sanofi India Limited
We noticed from the order passed by the learned CIT(A) that first appellate authority has given only one opportunity to the assessee, which was not availed by the assessee. From the statement of facts filed before learned CIT(A), we notice that the assessee has brought out certain factual aspects of the matter and they have not been considered by the tax authorities. Under these set of facts, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) and restore the same to his file with direction to examine the case of the assessee afresh by affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order has been pronounced in the Court on 18.10.2016
More judgments on Section 201(1)
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- Tmw Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs Circle 14(1)(2), MumbaiITA 30/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- State Bank of India, Guna vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, GwaliorITA 432/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- State Bank of India Regional Business… vs Income Tax Officer, TDS Gwalior, GwaliorITA 420/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- State Bank of India, Tikamgarh vs Income Tax Officer, TDS ITO (TDS) Gwalior…ITA 411/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026