Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107707 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
09-10-2024
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
03-10-2024
Assessment Year
2011-2012
Appeal Filed On
15-05-2023
Judgement Text
"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,चǷीगढ़ Ɋायपीठ “बी” , चǷीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE ŵी आकाश दीप जैन, उपाȯƗ एवं ŵी िवŢम िसंह यादव, लेखा सद˟ BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO.304 & 305/Chd/2023 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s Punjab National Bank BO-, New Road Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh बनाम The Jt. CIT(OSD) TDS Circle, Panchkula, Haryana ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACP0165G अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Alok Krishan, C.A राजˢ की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03/10/2024 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/10/2024 आदेश/Order PER BENCH : These are two appeals filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi each dt. 14/03/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12 confirming the order passed by the AO under section 201(1) r.w.s 201(1A) dt. 31/03/2018 wherein he has determined the tax under section 201(1) amounting to Rs. 912,622/- and interest under section 201(1A) amounting to Rs. 766,602/- and the levy of penalty by the ld JCIT under section 271C amounting to Rs 912,620/- vide order dt. 02/07/2018. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that basis information submitted by the assessee, it was observed by the AO that the assessee has failed to deduct taxe under section 194A in certain cases and thereafter show cause was issued to the assessee and after considering the submissions so filed by the assessee, the AO observed that the cases include payment of interest on saving bank account and giving the benefit of such cases, the AO held that the assessee has not stated anything for non-deduction/lower deduction of TDS on interest on FDRs on deposits beyond the threshold limit of Rs. 2 10,000/- as so prescribed under Section 194A of the Act and accordingly the assessee was held to be assessee in default under section 201 resulting in passing of the order under section 201 r.w.s. 201(1A) dt. 31/03/2018 raising the demand of tax and interest amounting to Rs. 16,79,223/- 3. Separately, the matter was referred by the AO to the JCIT for initiating the penalty proceeding under section 271C of the Act for failure to deduct tax at source and thereafter, the penalty order was passed by the JCIT under section 271C r.w.s 274 dt. 02/07/2018 stating that the assessee has nothing to explain in support of its claim for non deduction of tax at source and therefore assessee was held liable for imposing of penalty under section 271C of the Act. 4. Both these orders were challenged before the Ld. CIT(A) and on perusal thereof, we find that the same has been passed ex-parte qua the assessee and against which, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the order passed by the AO under section 201(1) r.w.s 201(1A) is barred by limitation as the same has been passed on 31/03/2018 beyond the prescribed limitation period and in support, reliance was placed on the Coordinate Bench decision in case of Reebok India Company C/O Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The JCIT(OSD), New Dehi in ITA No. 319/Del/2021 dt. 15/11/2021. It was accordingly submitted that the order so passed by the AO deserves to be set aside at very threshold as the same is barred by limitation. 6. The Ld. DR is heard who has submitted that no such ground of appeal has been taken by the assessee before the lower authorities and in any case, there is no finding by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore where the Bench so decide, he matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same. 7. After hearing both the parties and considering the fact that the assessee has not been provided proper opportunity and the order has been passed ex-parte by the ld CIT(A), we deem it appropriate that the assessee deserve an opportunity to represent its case before the ld CIT(A) and we also have the benefit of the findings of the ld CIT(A) and thus, the matter required to be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). 3 8. As far as the ground relating to limitation, no doubt, no such ground was specifically taken before the Ld. CIT(A). At the same time, the same being the legal ground, the same is hereby admitted and since we are setting aside the matter, this ground is also set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 9. In light of the above, the appeal in respect of levy of penalty under section 271C is also set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 10. In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A) and the same are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09/10/2024. Sd/- Sd/- आकाश दीप जैन िवŢम िसंह यादव (AAKASH DEEP JAIN) ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) उपाȯƗ / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद˟/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "
AI Insights
The case involves two appeals filed by M/s Punjab National Bank against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which confirmed the orders passed by the AO under sections 201(1) r.w.s 201(1A) and 271C of the Income Tax Act. The AO had determined tax and interest due to non-deduction of TDS on certain payments and imposed a penalty for the same. The Assessee contested that the orders were barred by limitation and that they were not given a fair opportunity to present their case. The tribunal agreed that the Assessee was not provided a proper opportunity and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
