Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin
Jeevan Telecasting Corporation ... vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Tds ... on 29 April, 2025
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
COCHIN BENCH
BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM
ITA No. 809/Coch/2024
Assessment Year: 2019-20
Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. .......... Appellant
32/2401 B Rashtradeepia Building
Palarivttom, Kochi 682025
[PAN: AAACJ8267F]
vs.
Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax .......... Respondent
TDS Circle, Kochi
Appellant by: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, CA
Respondent by: Shri Omanakuttan, Sr. D.R.
Date of Hearing: 19.03.2025
Date of Pronouncement: .04.2025
ORDER
Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 10.07.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had deducted TDS amounting to Rs.21,17,532/- during the financial year 2018-19 but, not remitted TDS amount to the Government Account in time. Thus, the assessee was treated as an assessee in default. A notice u/s. 274 2 ITA No. 809/Coch/2024 Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd.
r.w.s. 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued on 21.11.2019 enabling the assessee to show cause as to why penalty u/s. 271C of the Act should not be imposed. In response to the notice, assessee submitted reply before the AO. The AO was of the view that since the tax was deducted but not deposited to the government account within the prescribed time, the appellant is liable for penalty u/s. 271C of the Act and levied penalty of Rs. 21,71,532/-.
3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution.
4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.
5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non prosecution. As contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act the CIT(A) is required to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon before passing the order. It is the settled position of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal exparte, is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614.
3 ITA No. 809/Coch/2024Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd.
Therefore, in the light of the above legal position we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on April, 2025.
(SOUNDARARAJAN K.) (INTURI RAMA RAO)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Cochin, Dated: April, 2025
n.p.
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The Pr. CIT concerned
4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin
5. Guard File
By Order
Assistant Registrar
ITAT, Cochin
4
ITA No. 809/Coch/2024
Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd.
S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 20.03.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 24.03.2025 Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before the Second 3 JM/AM Member Draft discussed/approved by Second 4 AM/AM Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement Sr. PS/PS 7 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 8 Date on which the file goes to Head Clerk 9 Date on which file goes to A.R. 10 Date of Dispatch of order