M/S DHAULADHAR EDUCATION SOCIETY,KANGRA vs. ITO (TDS), PALAMPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeals of the assessee. The assessee had made valid pleas regarding the exemption of interest payments.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file submissions before the Assessing Officer, resulting in an ex-parte order. The assessee later argued that interest payments to Kotak Mahindra Bank were exempt under Section 194A(3)(i)(a) and that Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd had accounted for the interest received.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals without considering the assessee's submissions regarding exemptions and payee's income reporting.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ITA Nos. 201 to 204/Chd/2018- Dhauladhar Educational Society, Distt.Kangra 2
Before the Assessing officer, neither the assessee nor its
representative filed any submissions and the Assessing officer passed
an ex-parte order declaring the assessee as ‘assessee in default’.
However, in appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that so
far as the interest payments made to M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank was
concerned, the same were exempt from the purview of section 194A
of the Act being falling under the exemption clause of section 194A(3)(i)(a) of the Act as the Kotak Mahindra Bank was a banking
company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. The
second submission of the assessee has been that so far as the interest
payment made to Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd was
concerned, that the said company in its return of income had taken
into account the interest received from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A),
however, dismissed the appeals of the assessee on merits vide order
dated 26.7.2017 on the ground that the assessee had not furnished the
return of income of the payee u/s 139 of the Act.
Being aggrieved, the assessee filed M.A. u/s 154 of the Act
and sought to furnish the PAN Number and status of one of the
payee Kotak Mahindra Bank being a banking Financial Company.
The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the application filed u/s 154 of
the Act holding that the assessee had not furnished the above details
during the appellate proceedings.
After considering the rival contentions of the parties, we are of
the view, that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeals
of the assessee. That the assessee had already pleaded that the
More judgments on Section 194A
- S R P Jutha 13 Rajkot VI and Gr S Ma, Rajkot vs ITO WD 1(2)(1) Rajkot, RajkotITA 951/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Welspun Aunta Simaria Project Private… vs DCIT, Circle-78(1), DelhiITA 6559/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Lakhmanbhai Maru, Vadodara vs ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Vadodara, Aayakar…ITA 1046/AHD/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
- Hexad Infosoft Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 1713/BANG/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Hexad Infosoft Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 1712/BANG/2026[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