Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 03 ITAT CK 2971

Golfworx Ventures Private Limited vs ITO, Ward 51(3)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi · Decided on 25 March 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member · Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member
CASE NUMBER
ITA Nos. 8419 & 8420/Del/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 343 words

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

These appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)/Addl/JCIT-1, Pune (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeals filed before him against the order of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Further details of the orders of the lower authorities are as under:

ITA No. &AYLd. FAA who passed the appellate orderAppeal No. & Date of order of the Ld. FAAAO who passed the assessment order & Date of order
8419/D/25 2011-12Addl/JCIT-1, PuneDIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1078610376(1) Dated 17.07.2025ITO, Ward 74(3) Dated 26.03.2018
8420/D/25 2012-13CIT(A)-31, DelhiDIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1077112598(1) Dated 17.06.2025ITO, Ward 74(3) Dated 27.03.2019
2.

On hearing both sides we find that appeal ITA No. 8419/Del/2025 is filed with the delay of 76 days and ITA No. 8420/Del/2025 is filed with the delay of 106 days and an application for condonation of delay has been filed.Given the period of delay not being of substantial period and the reason cited the delay iscondoned and appeals admitted for hearing.

3.

Ld. Counsel submitted that company stopped its operation from 2016 and for that reason could not contest the issue before ld. tax authorities below. The issue arise out of Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges, which are considered as rent by the ld. AO, leading to alleging it required deduction of tax thus to consider assessee as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act for which ld. counsel has relied numerous judicial decision to contest that no TDS is to be deducted in case of CAM charges.

4.

In the light of aforesaid we consider it appropriate case to give assessee an opportunity to contest on merits. The issue on merits is restored to the files of ld. Assessing Officer to give fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass orders afresh. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.