ANUP NAYAK,ASANSOL V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), DELHI

ITA 120/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Anup Nayak, the appellant, who is engaged in mining and trading activities. For the assessment year 2012-13, it was found that the appellant failed to deduct tax at source (TDS) on certain expenditures and did not file TDS returns. Consequently, the Assessing Officer disallowed these expenditures under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act and initiated proceedings under sections 201(1) and 201(1A), treating the appellant as an assessee-in-default, which led to a demand of Rs.5,50,980. The CIT(A) upheld this demand in an ex parte order due to the appellant's non-appearance. The appellant then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712056 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; TDS; Procedural lapse
• Section: 201(1); 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.120/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anup Nayak………...……………………..…………………....Appellant 161, P N Malia Road, Raniganj, West Bengal – 713325. [PAN: ADFPN8917M] vs. CIT(A), Delhi……………..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : July 22, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Kolkata [in short CIT(A)] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-13, confirming the demand raised under section 201(1) read with section 201(1A) of the Act 2. Brief Facts of the Case the assessee is engaged in the contractual business of mining work and trading. During the relevant financial year 2011-12, the assessee failed to deduct tax at source (TDS) as required under Chapter XVII-B of the Income-tax Act and also failed to file TDS returns, On scrutiny, it was found that the assessee had debited the following expenditures in its Profit & Loss account without deduction of tax at source: Dumper hire charges: Rs.8,42,365 Lease Rent: Rs.23,27,000 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.120/Kol/2024 Anup Nayak 2 Interest on loan: Rs.5,88,884 Since no tax was deducted and deposited on the aforesaid expenses, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) and also initiated proceedings under section 201(1) read with section 201(1A) treating the assessee as an assessee-in-default. Consequently, a demand of Rs.5,50,980 was raised vide order dated 29,03.2019. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee failed to appear or file any submissions in support of its contentions despite repeated opportunities. The Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order, upholding the disallowance and demand raised under section 201(1)/201(1A) and dismissed the appeal. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order assessee is appeal before this tribunal, raising several grounds challenging the validity of the ex parte order and additions made. However, when the appeal was listed for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice from the Registry. The matter is, therefore, heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex parte order since the assessee did not appear or furnish any evidence in support of its case. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record, we observe that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order, as the assessee failed to appear before the appellate authority despite issuance of notices and opportunities granted. We are of the view that substantial justice should prevail over procedural lapses. A litigant should not suffer merely due to non-appearance on procedural dates if the case otherwise merits consideration. In the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to provide one more opportunity to Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.120/Kol/2024 Anup Nayak 3 the assessee to represent its case before the CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) dated 25.07.23 and restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to promptly respond to the notices issued by the CITA) and cooperate in the proceedings. Failure to do so may result in adjudication of the matter ex parte once again. 7. In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 23rd July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] लेखा सदèय/Accountant Member ÛयाǓयक सदèय/Judicial Member Dated: 23.07.2025. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3.CIT (A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "