Anirudh Bhuwalka, Kolkata V. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 513/KOL/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9415 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; TDS
• Section: 143(1); 205; 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member) I.T.A. No. 513/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Anirudh Bhuwalka..............................................................................................................Appellant [PAN: AEGPB 7445 E] Vs. DCIT (CPC).........................................................................................................................Respondent I.T.A. No. 514/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Anirudh Bhuwalka..............................................................................................................Appellant [PAN: AEGPB 7445 E] Vs. ADIT (CPC).........................................................................................................................Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Sandip Sengupta, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : January 31 st , 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : January 31 st , 2022 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: These two appeals have been preferred by the assessee against separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as ld. ‘CIT(A)] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) dated 22.09.2021 & 06.10.2021 for AY 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively. 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite notice. However, an application for adjournment of hearing has been filed which is vague as no plausible ground has been mentioned for the adjournment of the case. Therefore I proceed to decide the appeals of the assessee on merits after hearing ld. D/R. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 513 & 514/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anirudh Bhuwalka. 3. The assessee in these appeals has taken the following identical grounds of appeal: “1. a.(i) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating the issue in appeal raised by your appellant in Ground No. 1&2 of the appeal filed before him along with Form 35 on 16.07.2020 wherein your appellant had claimed that by operation of section 205 or otherwise once the tax was deducted at source by the payer, the credit for the same should be given to the payee irrespective of the fact of depositing the deducted tax by the payer with the Government of India in its Treasury Department. In as much as on such deduction the payee became fully entitled to claim the credit of such tax so deducted which could not have been denied by the AO. a.(ii) Your appellant submits that the fact that the tax was deducted at source by the payer is not in dispute and the credit therefore was allowable in accordance with law and section 205 of the Act and also instruction no. 275/29/2014-1 T-(B) dt. 01.06.2015. a.(iii) Your appellant prays that the credit for the amount of Rs. 10,09.289 being TDS be allowed in computing the tax payable by your appellant. 2. b.(i) The Ld. C1T(A) erred in adjudicating the appeal vide his order dt. 06.10.2021 without giving any opportunity of hearing to your appellant. b.(ii) Your appellant strongly submits that it was denied the opportunity of hearing as also representing its case in appeal and the CIT(A) has passed the order in gross violation of the provisions of natural justice, equity' and fairness. b.(iii) Your appellant prays that the orders of the CIT(A) and that of the AO be quashed 3. c. The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the id. AO had issued the intimation u/s. 143( 1) by ; i. Making an unauthorized adjustment in computing the tax liability of the appellant and ii. By not issuing any prior intimation as required by s. 143(1) of the adjustment to the tax payable claimed by your appellant while filing the return of income resulting into denial of an opportunity.” 4. A perusal of the above grounds of appeal reveals that the main grievance of the assessee is that he has not been given the credit of the taxes deducted at source by the payer. 5. A perusal of the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(A) reveals that the ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee has directed the Assessing Officer (for short ‘AO’) to verify the claim of the assessee and allow the necessary credit of the taxes paid/deducted at source as per law. Since the ld. CIT(A) has already granted relief to the assessee by directing the AO to verify the claim of the assessee, I therefore do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A). The appeals of the assessee are, therefore dismissed. 3 I.T.A. Nos. 513 & 514/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anirudh Bhuwalka. 6. In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 31.01.2022. Sd/- [Sanjay Garg] Judicial Member Dated: 31.01.2022 Bidhan (P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Anirudh Bhuwalka, A.C. Bhuteria & Co. 2, India Exchange Place, 2 nd Floor, Kolkata- 700 001. 2. DCIT (CPC). 3. ADIT (CPC). 4. CIT(A)- 5. CIT- 6. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. True copy By order Senior Pvt. Secy./DDO/H.O.O. ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata