AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The above captioned appeals are preferred by the assessee against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi dated 20.01.2026 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) arising from the separate assessment order dated 31.03.2023 passed by Assessing Officer ITO, Ward-73(1), New Delhi u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2016-17, assessment order dated 27.03.2024 passed by Assessing Officer ITO, Ward-73(1), New Delhi u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for the A.Y 2017-18, assessment order dated 13.06.2024 passed by Assessing Officer ITO, Ward-73(1), New Delhi u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for the A.Ys 2018-19, A.Y 2019-20, AY 2020-21 and AY 2021-22.
Since the above captioned six appeals were heard together and the facts in issues are identical, all the six appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
The assessee has filed grounds for AY 2016-17 in ITA 3373/Del/2026 as follows:
1.That the orders passed by Ld. AO u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act as well as appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) are bad in law and have been passed in contravention of prevailing law as well as facts of the case, therefore liable to be annulled.
2.That Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in rejecting admission of additional evidences filed u/R 46A(1) of 2 the Income Tax Rules, 1962 despite evident fact the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from furnishing of requisite evidences before Ld. AO during verification proceedings.
3.That Ld. AO grossly erred in presuming the payments made to paper checkers to be professional payments merely relying on 3 nomenclature of Expert Payment used by appellant while maintaining its books of account and ignoring the work done by such persons for which said payment was made by assessee.
4.That Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in holding task of verification of test papers and totaling of marks therein to be technical services (held as professional services by Ld. AO).
5.That Ld. AO grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in 5 holding that the assessee has made short deduction of TDS on payments of Rs. 3,84,06,728/-.
6.That Ld. AO grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in 6 levying interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act on alleged short deduction of TDS.
7.That Ld. AO grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in mechanically relying on information forwarded by DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi regarding short deduction of TDSignoring the fact that no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act was made by DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi while completing assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and also no independent corroborative evidences being found during the verification process u/s 201(1)/201(1A).
8.That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, OR 8 DLEETE any grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.
The assessee also filed an additional ground as follows:
1.That the order dated 31/03/2023 passed by Ld. ITO, Ward-73(1), New Delhi u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is illegal and not tenable under the law as jurisdiction over the case of assessee was to be with DCIT/ACIT, Circle 73(1) specified in Office Order F. No. JCIT/R- 73/Del/Jurisdiction/2014-15/2 dated 15/11/2014 and corrigendum thereto vide F. No. JCIT/R-73/DEL/Jurisdiction/2022-23/506 dated 29/12/2022.
Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We find that the assessee has taken ground 2 that the CIT(A) has rejected additional evidences filed under Rule 46A(1) of the Act and he did not appreciate that the assessee was prevented by the reasonable cause for furnishing all requisite evidences before the learned AO during the verification period.
In such view of the matter, we are of the considered view that in the interest of natural justice, the matter be remitted back to the CIT(A) with direction to consider the additional evidences while adjudicating the issue at hand. Further we find that the issue of jurisdiction raised in the assessee’s additional ground was not before the CIT(A). We therefore direct the CIT(A) to decide on the issue of jurisdiction while adjudicating on the issue of validity of order passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A). The ground of appeal is decided on the aforesaid terms.
The facts in the other five appeals for AY 2017-18 to AY 2021-22 are identical. The same are accordingly decided in aforesaid terms as above.
In the result the appeal in ITA Nos. 3373, 3374, 3375, 3376, 3377 & 3378/DEL/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes.