RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY,JAIPUR V. IT WARD -1(1), JAIPUR

ITA 808/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The Rajasthan State Health Assurance Agency appealed against the order of the ld. Addl. / JCIT(A)-1, Hyderabad, which confirmed the interest levied on late payment of TDS amounting to Rs. 23,46,390 for the assessment year 2021-22. The agency argued that the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused operational disruptions at the bank responsible for processing the TDS payments. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution as the agency failed to respond to the notices, attributed to the use of an old email ID. The tribunal found merit in restoring the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, considering the exceptional circumstances presented by the pandemic.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774879 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharjee, Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CIT, CIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., M/s Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd v ITO, ACIT(TDS), Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs Power Grid Corporation of India, Rakshak Chemicals Pvt Ltd vs. ITO, 3rd ITO vs Bombay Cable Co. Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKAS RAJVANS HI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; TDS
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

"vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” JAIPUR JhjkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oaJhujsUnzdqekj] U;kf;dlnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 808/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2021-22 Rajasthan State Health Assurance Agency Old RTDC, HQ Building, Opp.RailwayStation,Jaipur – 302 006 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 1(1) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AACAR 7608 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Vikas Rajvanshi,CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 25/08/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: : 01 /09 /2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. Addl. / JCIT(A)-1, Hyderabad dated 21-03-2025 for the assessment year 2021-22 raising therein following ground of appeal; ‘’The order of the CIT Appeals is ex parte and without hearing the assessee. The assessee could not respond to the notices of the CIT Appeals due to old email id. The CPC TDS cell raised a demand on interest on late payment of TDS of Rs. 23,46,390 which is related to F.Y. 2020-21 (A.Y. 2021-22) as the bank branch where the cheques were deposited was grappled with the onslaught of the COVID pandemic wherein the bank was witnessing a lot of distress and agony due to the staff members at the front-end getting infected with Covid 19. Transactions pertinent to the TDS payment were inadvertently missed out by bank consequent Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO.808/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR to the acute staff shortage. Based on the Humanitarian grounds and the adversities that each one of us had to undergo at a personal level during the peak of the pandemic era, we wish to humbly request your good self to waive off the interest arising consequent to the delay in the TDS payment not due to assessee’s default. So, interest levied of Rs. 23,46,390 on late deposit of TDS during COVID period must be deleted due to this reasonable cause and refund the TDS amount as it was paid out of general public welfare fund. 2.1 Apropos of the solitary ground of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld.Addl./JCIT(A) has confirmed the order of the AO as the assessee did not submit any explanation or supporting evidence to prove its grounds even though it was provided sufficient opportunities. The narration of observation made by the ld.Addl./JCIT(A) is as under:- ‘’6.3 The appellant, despite in the knowledge of receipt of hearing notices, seems to have chose not file any submissions, implying casual nature on part of the appellant. In view of the above, it is clear that the appellant has no bonafide explanation to rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer and, therefore, chose not to avail the opportunities afforded to it during the appeal proceedings. Needless to state that nothing cogent was filed during the assessment proceedings. 6.4. As there is no response to appeal notices, the appeal is liable to be dismissed in terms of verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the various High Courts. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharjee and another (10 CTR 354) held that an appeal means an effective appeal- \"Expression \"prefer an appeal\" would mean effectively prosecuting an appeal’’ Purposefully interpreted, preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it. If a party retreats before the contest begins, it is as good as not having entered the fray. 6.5. The Hon'ble MP High Court in Estate of Late TukojiraoHolkar v. CIT. 223 ITR 480(MP) has held that if a party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of appeal paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference. Similar view has also been taken in the case of CIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del). Following the ratio of Multiplan (India) Ltd Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO.808/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR (supra), the Chennai Tribunal has also dismissed appeal for non-prosecution in the case of M/s Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd v ITO in ITA No.134/Mds./2011 dated 5.7.2011 for A.Y.2006-07. It is pertinent to add here that the laws assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the well-known maxim \"Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt. It means equity comes to the aid of the vigilant and not the slumbering. In all actions, suits and other proceedings at law and in equity, the diligence and careful plaintiff is favoured to the prejudicial of him who is careless. In view of the above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6.6.1. Even on merits, the case of the appellant does not hold ground. The appellant has failed to prove the AO wrong on the financial penalties of Rs.27.780/- and Rs. 23,46,390/- arising consequent to the delay in the TDS payment. The appellant failed to prove that it has discharged its TDS liability and therefore non-liable for levy of interest u/201(1A) of the ACT 6.6.2. Even after providing sufficient opportunities during appeal proceedings, the appellant has not submitted any explanation or supporting evidences to prove its grounds. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the intimation of the CPC made u/s 143(1) of the Act and thus, order of the AO is hereby confirmed and the grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed. 7. As a result, the appeal is dismissed on account of non-prosecution and on merits.’’ 2.2 In the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee has prayed that the assessee got affected during the COVID period and interest levied i.e. of Rs.23,46,390/- due to late deposit of TDS during Covid period deserve to be deleted due to said reasonable cause and TDS amount be refunded as it was paid out of general welfare fund. The written submissions put forth by the ld.AR of the assessee before the Bench is read as under:- ‘’Ground No. 1 The order of the CIT Appeals is ex parte and without hearing the assessee. The assessee could not respond to the notices of the CIT Appeals due to old email id. The CPC TDS cell raised a demand on interest on late payment of TDS of Rs. 23,46,390 which is related to F.Y. 2020-21 (A.Y. 2021-22) as the bank branch where the cheques were deposited Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO.808/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR was grappled with the onslaught of the COVID pandemic wherein the bank was witnessing a lot of distress and agony due to the staff members at the front-end getting infected with Covid 19. Transactions pertinent to the TDS payment were inadvertently missed out by bank consequent to the acute staff shortage. Based on the Humanitarian grounds and the adversities that each one of us had to undergo at a personal level during the peak of the pandemic era, we wish to humbly request your good self to waive off the interest arising consequent to the delay in the TDS payment not due to assessee’s default. So, interest levied of Rs. 23,46,390 on late deposit of TDS during COVID period must be deleted due to this reasonable cause and refund the TDS amount as it was paid out of general public welfare fund. 1. The assessee is an AOP and registered under The Indian Societies Registration Act, 1860 and a Government of Rajasthan undertaking which is engaged in general public welfare services as per copy enclosed vide PB No. 1-26. The society provides medical assistance to the registered card holder under various schemes of Rajasthan State Government from time to time such as Mukhyamantri Ayushmaan Arogya Yojana, National Food Security Act, RashtriyaSwastya Bima Yojana (RSBY). The society obtains financial assistance from Government of Rajasthan in form of Grants and these grants are utilized for the Insurance Premium to New India Assurance Ltd., which is under the agreement with RSHAA. Government of Rajasthan provides free medical treatment through Govt. and Private Hospitals under Mukhyamantri Ayushmaan Arogya Yojana for this purpose they are doing Insurance of families of general public of Rajasthan. We are also enclosing Letter for receipt of Grant utilization from Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Government of India vide PB No. 27-28 and copy of Financials of A.Y. 2021-22 vide PB No. 29-38 for your reference. 2. The delay in the deposit of TDS was not due to any wilful default, negligence, or omission on the part of the assessee. The assessee had acted in good faith and taken timely steps to ensure compliance with the TDS provisions. During the relevant period, the assessee maintained its primary banking relationship with Kotak Mahindra Bank, which, however, was not an authorized bank for direct payment of TDS payments on to the Government of India. Accordingly, in order to comply with the statutory requirements, the Kotak Mahindra Bank arranged to deposit the TDS through IDBI Bank, which was an authorized bank for this purpose. The necessary TDS payment cheques were duly issued and handed over to the Kotak Mahindra Bank branch within the prescribed time. However, due to the unprecedented disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including severe staff shortages and operational constraints at the bank branch due to infections and lockdowns, there was an inadvertent delay in sending such cheques to IDBI bank for further processing and remitting the payment to the Central Government account as per copy enclosed vide PB No. 39-41 of receipt of TDS challan payment. It is pertinent to note that the assessee had discharged its duty promptly by preparing the challans and tendering the cheques to the bank well within time. The delay was entirely beyond the control of the assessee and occurred solely due to operational lapses on the bank’s side. In recognition of this, the bank has also issued an apology letter Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO.808/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR acknowledging the delay and confirming that the lapse occurred at their end, as enclosed vide PB No. 42-43. In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor due to any fault of the assessee. The assessee acted with diligence and good faith under exceptional circumstances. Therefore, it is requested to waive the interest of Rs. 23,46,390 and grant some relief to the assessee. 3. Considering the humanitarian crisis faced during the peak pandemic period, wherein staff, citizens, and public institutions were severely affected, we earnestly appeal for a compassionate and equitable approach. That the interest levied under section 201(1A) amounting to ₹23,46,390 may kindly be waived in full. 4. The TDS department adjusted the demand of interest from the amount of unconsumed challans on TRACES portal. The payment of those challans was made out of public welfare funds managed by the assessee for other purposes. The resultant levy of heavy interest causes an undue financial burden and goes against the objective spirit of public service. Considering the humanitarian crisis faced during the peak pandemic period, wherein staff, citizens, and public institutions were severely affected, we earnestly appeal for a compassionate and equitable approach. That the interest levied under section 201(1A) amounting to ₹23,46,390 may kindly be waived in full. The refund of amount of available balance in unconsumed challans that is Rs. 14,20,507, may kindly be granted to the assessee at the earliest. 5. The CIT Appeals has given ex-parte order due to non-filing of any submission or reply to the hearing notices , because the assessee was not aware of any kind of mails of hearing notices as the email id on which all the notices were delivered is old email id which was later corrected by the assessee but till that window of submitting reply was already closed. So CIT Appeals ex-parte the assessee by issuing order u/s 250. CIT(A) disallowed the assessee’s appeal as no reply was submitted to the CIT Appeals hearing notices. Hence, CIT Appeals confirmed interest levied of Rs. 23,46,390 on late deposit of TDS by CPC TDS cell without appreciating the reasonable cause during COVID period i.e. situation beyond the control of the assessee. 6. In support of the assessee’s request for waiver of interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, it is respectfully submitted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), vide Circular No. 11/2017 dated 24th March 2017, issued under section 119(2)(a) of the Act, has laid down guidelines enclosed vide PB No 44. permitting waiver or reduction of interest state that: “Guidelines for waiver of interest charged under section 201(1A) (i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.In exercise of the powers conferred under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 119 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act)Central Board of Direct Taxes (the Board), hereby directs that the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and Director General of Income-tax may reduce or waive interest charged under section 201(1A) (i) of the Act in the classes of cases specified in paragraph 2 of Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA NO.808/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR this Order for the period and to the extent the Chief Commissioner of Income- tax/Director General of Income-tax may deem fit. However, no reduction or waiver of such interest shall be ordered unless the principal demand under sections 200A, 201(1) or 234E, as the case may be, stands fully paid or satisfactory arrangements for payment of the principal demand under these sections have been made. The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Director General of Income-tax may also impose any other condition as deemed fit for the said reduction or waiver of interest.” In the present case, the principal TDS has been paid by assessee only interest was levied due the delay in remittance of TDS was due to the unprecedented disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including acute staff shortages at the bank, which resulted in delayed clearance of TDS cheques deposited timely by the assessee. The assessee acted in good faith and took all reasonable steps to comply with the statutory obligations. Therefore, in light of the said circular and the existence of reasonable cause, it is prayed that the interest levied under section 201(1A) amounting to ₹23,46,390 may be waived in full. The circular further provides that such relief may be granted by Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Director General officer of Income-tax where there is no loss to the Revenue, i.e. the deductee has duly paid the tax on the income concerned. We request your honour to provide direction to do the same and grant relief to the assessee. We are also enclosing some identical case laws for your reference: 7. In the similar case decided by Hon’ble the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad in case of “ACIT(TDS), Circle-2(1), Hyderabad, vs Power Grid Corporation of India on 20 June, 2017 for A.Y.2008-09” as stated below also enclosed vide PB No. 45-48: “ Aggrieved, assessee contended before the Ld. CIT (A) that on an identical matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case reported in 354 ITR 156, observed that the assessee cannot be said to have defaulted when it has merely followed the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. In the a forementioned case, ONGC was the assessee which in turn deducted the TDS but did not make the payment for the period when the interim order of the Hon'ble High Court was in force. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Rakshak Chemicals Pvt Ltd vs. ITO (98 TTJ 357), wherein the Bench observed that the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act could not be complied with during the court order and hence, the deductor cannot be held to be in default u/s 201 and consequently, interest thereunder cannot be levied. He has also relied upon several decisions to submit that there is a reasonable cause in not depositing the tax deducted in which event interest cannot be charged. The Ld. CIT (A), agreed with the contention of the assessee and observed that in the assessee's own case, the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Benches exonerated the assessee from the rigour of provisions of section 201(1A) of the Act since, the assessee has deposited the amount in a separate bank account as directed by the competent jurisdictional High Court. Ld. CIT (A) also followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC and Others (SC) 354 ITR 156, wherein the Court observed that the assessee, who has scrupulously followed the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, cannot be said to be in default in making deposit of the Tax Deducted at Source in which event Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA NO.808/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR interest cannot be charged u/s 201 of the Act. He accordingly deleted the interest charged by the AO.” Our case is also identical to the above case in terms of the existence of a reasonable cause for the delay in payment of TDS. The assessee is a government-controlled Association of Persons (AOP), primarily dependent on funds received from both the State Government and the Central Government. The assessee also deposited TDS payment cheques along with challan in time limit with the Kotak Mahindra Bank but during the pandemic, there were severe disruptions in administrative functioning, including death of employees of bank, not proper functioning of bank branch so bank inadvertently delay in deposit of challans in Government exchequer account. These delays were beyond the control of the assessee and materially impacted its ability to discharge statutory obligations within the prescribed timelines. The delay occurred during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which caused unprecedented disruptions, including acute staff shortages at the bank due to widespread infections. As a result, certain banking operations were adversely affected. In the present case, the assessee had duly issued the cheques for the payment of TDS and deposited them in the bank within the due dates. However, due to administrative lapses and delays at the bank's end, the cheques were not cleared in time, resulting in the delay in crediting the TDS to the government account. The circumstances leading to the delay were completely beyond the control of the assessee, who acted in good faith and with due diligence so, assessee is not in default. Hence, the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to any negligence on the part of the assessee but was caused due to a bona fide and reasonable cause. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the interest levied under section 201(1A) amounting to ₹23,46,390 should be waived, and appropriate relief may kindly be granted to the assessee. 1.7 In the similar case decided by Hon’ble Bombay Bench of Tribunal in case of Third ITO v. Bombay Cable Co. (P.) Ltd. [1981] cited at 11 TTJ 386 pronounced that: “The assessee has placed reliance on some decisions of the tribunal in which financial difficulties have been accepted as reasonable cause for default in payment of tax. The Madras bench of the tribunal in case of R.Karuppaswamy Vs 2nd ITO (9 TTJ 442) had cancelled the penalty levied for default in payment of self assessment tax on the ground paucity of funds. Similarly the Bombay bench of the tribunal in case of 3rd ITO Vs Bombay Cable Co. Pvt. Ltd. (11 TTJ 386) had upheld the dropping of penalty proceeding and deletion of interest levied under section 201(1A) for failure to deposit the TDS with Central Government on the ground of financial difficulties.” In our case, the assessee was also facing financial constraints due to the unprecedented global COVID-19 pandemic. The default in payment of TDS was not intentional or wilful but occurred due to genuine financial hardship and paucity of funds. The assessee is a government-controlled Association of Persons (AOP), primarily dependent on funds received from both the State Government and the Central Government. The assessee has to pau to the Insurance company for the health premium of the Rajasthan Public under Mukhyamantri Ayushmaan Arogya Yojana to the card holders. During the pandemic, there were severe disruptions in administrative functioning, including delays in the Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA NO.808/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR issuance of fund sanction orders by the competent authorities. These delays were beyond the control of the assessee and materially impacted its ability to discharge statutory obligations within the prescribed timelines. In light of the above, it is submitted that there existed a reasonable cause for the delay in TDS payment. Therefore, the levy of interest under section 201(1A) may kindly be considered for deletion or waiver on these justifiable and bona fide grounds. To support his submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the following documents:- S.N. Particulars Page No. 1. Registration Certificate of the assesee 1-26 2. Letter for receipt of Grant Utilization from Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Govt. of India 27-28 3. Copy of Financials for the A.Y. 2021-23 29-38 4. Copy of receipt of TDS Challans deposited in the bank 39-41 5. Apology letter from Kota Mahindra Bank for delayed payment of TDS Challans 42-43 6. CBDT Circular No. 11/2017 dated 24-03-2017 providing guidelines for waiver of interest charged u/s 201(1A)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 44 7. Decision of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Hyderabad in case of ACIT (TDS), Circle2(1), Hyderabad vs Power Grid Corporation of India on 20 June, 2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 45-48 2.3 In the course of hearing, the ld. DR stood by the order of the ld.CIT(A) for the reasons recorded therein. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record.Brief facts of the case are that the CPC TDS cell raised a demand of interest on late payment of TDS of Rs. 23,46,390 related to 3rd quarter of A.Y. 2021-22. The demand is due to interest levied on late payment of deposit of TDS by the bank branch even timely submission of Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA NO.808/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR TDS cheque by assessee. The Kotak Mahindra Bank branch was affected Covid Pandemic wherein the bank was witnessing a lot of agony due to death of staff member at the front-end getting infected with Covid-19. The Bank intimated that after the complaint by the assessee and joint investigation with the senior bank officials, it was evident that the transactions pertinent to TDS payment were inadvertently missed out due to the acute staff shortage at bank branch level in Covid Period. The senior bank officials carried out a detailed investigation with each staff member in this regard and certified that there was no intent issue in delaying/ denying the transactions and it was an inadvertent missed out on the part of the bank branch and cheques were given to bank by the assessee in time but was not cleared by the bank due to bank’s fault. Hence, CPC levied interest on late payment of TDS of Rs. 23,46,390 related to 3rd quarter of A.Y. 2021-22. The ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) issued hearing notices to the assessee for explanation but there was no filing of any submission or reply to the hearing notices and the assessee was notaware of any kind of mails of hearing of notices. The notices were delivered by the Department at wrong email-id. Hence, such delay took place in fling the reply before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) confirmed Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA NO.808/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR the action of the AO by passing an ex parte order by holding following narration. ‘’6.6.1. Even on merits, the case of the appellant does not hold ground. The appellant has failed to prove the AO wrong on the financial penalties of Rs.27.780/- and Rs. 23,46,390/- arising consequent to the delay in the TDS payment. The appellant failed to prove that it has discharged its TDS liability and therefore non-liable for levy of interest u/201(1A) of the ACT 6.6.2. Even after providing sufficient opportunities during appeal proceedings, the appellant has not submitted any explanation or supporting evidences to prove its grounds. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the intimation of the CPC made u/s 143(1) of the Act and thus, order of the AO is hereby confirmed and the grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed.’’ 2.4.1 From the entire conspectus of the case, the Bench feels that the issue raised by the assessee needs effective adjudication after proper examination as to the late deposit of TDS payment and subsequent levy of penalty amounting to Rs.23,46,390/- u/s 201(1)(A) of the Act by the Department. Hence, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh but subject to cost of Rs.1,000/- which will be deposited by the appellant in “Prime Minister National Relief Fund’’. We order accordingly. Thus the appeal of the assessee is disposed off, for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA NO.808/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed of, for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 01 /09 /2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ujsUnzdqekj½ ¼jkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ½ (NARINDER KUMAR) (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 01 /09/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Rajasthan State Health Assurance Agency, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 1(1), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.808/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "