Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging the orders,dated 18/12/2013 of the CIT (A)-14,Mumbai the assessee has filed the appeals for the above-mentioned three Assessment Years(AY.s.).Issue involved in all the appeals is about levy of penalty u/s.272A(2)(K)of the Act,for filing quarterly returns in form number 24Q/26Q belatedly.So,we are adjudicating all the appeals by single order.
ITA/961/MUM/2014-AY.2009-10: 2.On examination of records, the AO noted that the assessee had not filed quarterly tax deducted at source statements in form number 24Q and 20 6Q within the time specified under section 206/206C of the Act, read with Rule 37 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) for the year under consideration, that were required to be filed in the end of the every quarter. Under the provisions of section 200 (3) read with Rule 31A, a quarterly statement of tax deducted at source in form number 24Q and 26Q is required to be five by the assessee by 15th July, 15th October, 15th January and 15th June of the year. As the assessee had not file the statements in time, the assessing officer(AO) issued a show cause notice to the assessee asking it to explain as to why penalty under section 272A(2)(K) should not be living. In response to the notice, as per the AO, the assessee did not file any reply.The AO held that the onus of establishing that there was reasonable cause for not filing the statements was not discussed by the assessee. Invoking the provisions of section 272A(2)(K),he levied a penalty of Rs.7.08 lakhs for late filing of the tax deducted at source returns.
961-63-Secutech 3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO,the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA).As per the FAA,nobody appeared before her nor any explanation was filed for not filing the required returns within the stipulated time.Upholding the order of the AO, she dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.
4.During the course of hearing before us, the Authorised Representative(AR)stated that assessee has informed the office of the FAA about the change of address, that assessee did not receive any hearing notice,that FAA had decided the issue without hearing the assessee.The Departmental Representative(DR)left the issue to the discretion of the Bench.
5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that vide its letter,dt.15.4.2013,the assessee had informed the FAA that it had changed its office from Dadar to Mahim and that the change of address should be noted for the appeals filed for the above mentioned 3 years.We further find that the letter of the assessee was recd in the office of the FAA.Even then she did not issue hearing notice on the new address and adjudicated the appeal. The order of the FAA is silent about the service of the hearing notice.In these circumstances ,we are of the opinion that there was violation of principles of natural justice-the matter was decided without hearing the assessee.Therefoe, in the interest of justice we are restoring back the matter to the file of the FAA for fresh adjudication who would afford a reasonable opportunity of ‘effective hearing’ to the assessee .Ground raised by the assessee is decided in its favour,in part.