AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is a batch of three appeals pertaining to the same assessee for AYs 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2018-19. These cases arise from orders all dated 28.11.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-4, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience all these three cases are being disposed of through a single order.
In all these cases there is a dispute regarding Sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. The assessee apparently deducted tax at source at rates prevalent for Section 194C of the Act, whereas the Ld. AO has held that the TDS had to be done at rates prescribed for Section 194I of the Act. In all the three years the point of contention is with regard to these facts only.
The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging these actions of Ld. AO but has also challenged the fact that the appeals in all the three years have been decided in an ex parte manner.
Before us the Ld. AR mentioned that due to a communication gap between the assessee and his tax consultant, compliance could not be made before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). Accordingly, he prayed that the assessee may be given another chance to present the documents and facts before the Ld. First Appellate Authority.
The Ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below.
We have considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. We find that in all the three cases the orders are passed in an ex parte manner and therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set aside all the three orders and remand these matters back to the file of Ld. First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication. The assessee would do well to respond promptly to opportunity notices to be issued by the Ld. First Appellate Authority.
In the result, these three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.