Colours Multimedia Private Limited vs ITO, Ward 6(1)

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 15.09.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Pune(hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1080765465(1)arising out of the order dated 15.03.2011 u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by ITO, Ward-6(2), for AY: 2009-10.

Heard and perused the records. Based on information that the Assesseec company is not complying with the TDS provisions as laid down under the Act verification proceedings of TDS for the financial year 2007-08 to 09-10 were initiated and Assessee was asked to furnish following details:

After notices as there was non-compliance and the order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) for the financial year 2007-08 in the case of the assessee has been completed on the basis of information available on record information was sent to the ITO, Ward 3(4), New Delhi requesting for the copy of Income Tax Return for the previous year relevant to Asstt. Year 2009-10. In reply, the ITO, Ward 3(4), intimated that the Assessee has not filed its Return of income for the Asstt. Year 2009-10. Assessee was further called for explanation but no submission were received thus ld. AO observed that the Assessee is not co-operating and as there is only Return of Income for AY 2008-09, thus on the basis of same tax liabilities for the financial year 2008-09 were estimated as follows.

Ld. AO thus concluded that since the Assessee has failed to furnish relevant details of TDS including Ledger A/c of these expenses as well as amount of TDS deducted and deposited into Govt. A/c, it is presumed that the Assessee has not complied with the provisions of TDS while incurring and/or making payment of these expenses. The liability of TDS on these expenses was computed as per the provisions of TDS without giving any credit:

TDS rates were taken at higher rates as no details/status have been provided.TDS liability u/s 201(1) on the above mentioned expenses works out to Rs.25,35,009/-. Since the Assessee failed to deduct TDS of Rs.25,35,009/-, the case was referred to the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-49 for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271C of the I.T. Act, 1961.

Further, as Assessee had failed to furnish details either with regard to tax or the returns for the relevant financial year filed with the department. The status of TDS returns for the FY 2007-08 as per Income-tax TDS database was considered as under:

Now when assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) the same has been dismissed in limine for reason that there was delay of 2825 days and we find that assesse had taken a plea that no notices were ever received for served upon the assesse company and the reason cited by ld. AR is that assesse had closed his operations. An affidavit of Puneet Nanda director of the company was also filed but the same was not found sufficient and the appeal of the assesse was dismissed by ld. CIT(A). ld. DR has though submitted that very vague reason is given. However, considering the contentions that assessee’s operations had stopped long back and there was non service of the notices then without factually discredit the assertion of the assesse from the assessment record or report from the assessing officer non consideration of on oath deposition of the director of the assesse in the form of affidavit is not justified and thus, to give assesse an opportunity to contest on merit we consider it appropriate case to restore the issue on facts as well as law to the files of assessing officer to give fresh opportunity of hearing to the assesse and pass order afresh. The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes.