M/S. PRIME INDIAN HOSPITALS P. LTD., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 2741/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9230 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; TDS
• Section: 234E; 200A; 201; 274

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D BENCH : CHENNAI , . , [BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ] !' ./I.T.A. NOS.2727, 2728, 2729, 2730, 2731, 2732, 2733, 2734, 2735, 2736, 2737, 2738, 2739, 2740, 274 1 & 2742/CHNY/2019. #$% &$ / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2017-18 (24Q-Q1), 2017- 18 (24Q- Q2), 2017-18 (24Q-Q3), 2017-18 (24Q- Q 4), 20 17-18 (26Q- Q1), 2017-18 (26Q- Q2), 2017-18 (26Q- Q3), 2017-18 (26Q- Q4), 2018-19 (24Q- Q1), 2018-19 (24Q- Q2), 2018-19 (24Q- Q3), 2018- 19 (24Q- Q4), 2018-19 (26Q- Q1), 2018-19 (26Q-Q2), 2018-19 (26Q-Q3), & 2018-19 (26Q-Q4). M/S. PRIME INDIAN HOSPITALS P. LTD, NO.1050, POONAMALLEE HIGH ROAD, ARUMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 106. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD, U.P. 201 010. [PAN AACCN 9372R] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) !' '( ) * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE +,'( ) * /RESPONDENT BY : MS. R. ANITHA, IRS, JCIT. # - ) . /DATE OF HEARING : 01-01-2020 /0&% ) . /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 -01-2020 / O R D E R PER BENCH THESE SIXTEEN APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX ITA NOS.2727-2742 /2019 :- 2 -: (APPEALS)-3, CHENNAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS CIT(A) ) DATED 30.08.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2017-18 (24Q-Q1), 2017-18 (2 4Q- Q2), 2017- 18 (24Q-Q3), 2017-18 (24Q- Q 4), 2017-18 (26Q-Q1), 2017-18 (26Q- Q2), 2017-18 (26Q- Q3), 2017-18 (26Q- Q4), 2018-19 (24Q- Q1), 2018-19 (24Q- Q2), 2018-19 (24Q- Q3), 2018-19 (24Q- Q4), 2018-19 (26Q- Q1), 2018-19 (26Q-Q2), 2018-19 (26Q-Q3), & 20 18-19 (26Q- Q4). 2. SINCE, THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE THE SAME VIDE THIS C OMMON ORDER. 3. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY THE FACTS RELEVANT IN ITA NO.2727/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018 (24 Q-Q1), ARE STATED HEREIN. 4. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) - 3, CHENNAI DATED 30.08.2019 IN L.T.A.NO.37/2018-19 FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS , AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER EXPARTE IN VIOLATING GROSSLY THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE AND OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ANY ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE SHOULD BE RECKONED AS NULLITY IN LAW. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT HAVI NG NOT GRANTED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WHILE THE APPELLA NT HAD RESPONDED TO THE NOTICES ISSUED IN FIXING THE HEARING IN THE ABOVE MATTER, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN SUSTAINING THE INTIMATION/ ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MECHANICALLY WAS WRONG, ER RONEOUS, UNJUSTIFIED, INCORRECT AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. ITA NOS.2727-2742 /2019 :- 3 -: 4. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN A NY EVENT THERE WERE REASONABLE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE PRESUMED VIOL ATION ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT WHILE NEGATING THE MECHANICAL ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 200A OF THE ACT FOR PASSING CONSEQ UENTIAL ORDER IN IMPOSING LEVIES AS CONTEMPLATED THEREIN INCLUDING T HE INTEREST U/S 234E OF THE ACT AND OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ENTIRE COMPUTATION FORMING PART OF THE ORDER/INTIMATION PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VARIOUS FACETS WAS WRONG, ERRO NEOUS, UNJUSTIFIED, INCORRECT AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 5. THE CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN OVERLOOKING THE OBJEC TIONS OF THE APPELLANT ON THE QUANTIFICATION OF SHORT DEDUCTION/ PAYMENT OF TDS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE R ELEVANT MATERIALS AND OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE SUSTENANCE O F SUCH DIFFERENTIAL COMPONENTS AS RECOVERABLE FROM THE APP ELLANT IN THE COMPUTATION FORMING PART OF THE ORDER/INTIMATION PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION. 6. THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE LEVY OF INTEREST FOR THE DISPUTED SHORT DEDUCTION/PAYMENT OF TDS BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION. 7. THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE LEVY OF FEE U/S 234E OF THE ACT AS PART OF THE COMPUTATION OF THE INTIMATIO N/ORDER WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION. 8. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ORDER/INTIMATION BEING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEFORE HIM WAS PASSED OUT OF TIME, INVALID, PASSED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND NOT SUSTAI NABLE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW AND FURTHER OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIA TED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD REMITTED/DEPOSITED THE TDS THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, THE FRAUD! CHE ATING/FORGERY COMMITTED LEADING TO THE INITIATION OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS WOULD FORTIFY THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONSIDERING THE DE LETION OF THE CONSEQUENTIAL LEVIES WHICH FORMED PART OF THE COMPU TATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER/INTIMATION. 9. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL GR OUNDS/ARGUMENTS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 5. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) POSTED THE CASE FOR HEARING FOUR TIMES. ON FIRST TWO OCCASIONS, ITA NOS.2727-2742 /2019 :- 4 -: THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE A PPEARED AND SOUGHT TIME. ON 3 RD OCCASION THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 25 TH JULY,2019, IT APPEARS THAT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE CASE WAS AGAIN POSTED FOR HEARING ON 19 TH AUGUST, 2019 FOR FOURTH TIME. ON 19 TH AUGUST, 2019, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CI T(A) HAD PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS NOT CLEAR TO US, AS TO WHETHER OR NO T, 4 TH HEARING NOTICE WERE SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THERE IS NOT HING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT APPELLANT IS SHOW CAUSED, WHICH IN OUR CO NSIDERED OPINION IS AGAINST PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THEREFORE I N ORDER TO MEET THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE REMIT THE APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DE-NOVO CONSIDERATION AFTER AFFORDIN G DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE APPELLANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.2727/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 (24Q- Q1) IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE . ITA NOS.2728 TO 2742/CHNY/2019:- 8 . SINCE, THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE IDENT ICAL TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.2727/CHNY/2019, FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED THEREIN, WE PARTLY ALLOW THE APPEALS FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITA NOS.2727-2742 /2019 :- 5 -: THE ABOVE LINES INDICATED IN APPEAL ITA NO.2727/CHN Y/2019 SUPRA. HENCE, THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 2727 TO 2742/CHNY/2019 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020, A T CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ! '# /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1 #- / CHENNAI 2# / DATED: 7TH JANUARY, 2020. KV 3 ) +.4 5' !6 5&. / COPY TO: 1 . !' '( / APPELLANT 3. 7. (!' ) / CIT(A) 5. 5 :; +.#< / DR 2. +,'( / RESPONDENT 4. 7. / CIT 6. ;$ =- / GF