AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:
This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A-3, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred as CIT(A)), dated 27.1.2026. Order u/s. 201(A)(/(1A) 29.3.2025 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “Act”) relevant to assessment year 2018-19 was passed by the ITO(TDS), Ward 73(2), New Delhi.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
1.That under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding order passed by the ITO, Ward 73(2), TDS New Delhi which is illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction.
2.That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in not quashing the impugned order being barred by limitation.
3.That under the fats and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO as well as CIT(A) erred in law as well as in merits in not providing reasonable opportunity of hearing.
4.That under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on merits in sustaining the interest of Rs. 22,90,631/- charged u/s. 201(1A).
The brief facts of the case are that a TDS survey u/s. 133A(2A) of the At was conducted on 21.9.2017 at the premises of the assessee. Consequent thereto, proceedings u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act were initiated for F.Y. 2017-18 (AY 2018-19), culminating in a consolidated order dated 29.3.2025 raising a demand of Rs. 1,84,60,104/-. In appeal, out of total demand of Rs. 1,84,60,104/-, the addition on account of interest payable as per Audit Report amounting to Rs. 22,90,631/- was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and other remaining additions were remanded back to the AO for verification. Against the sustaining addition on account of levy of interest amounting to Rs. 22,90,631/- assessee is in appeal before us.
At the time of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in reversing this onus and dismissing the ground merely because the assessee did not furnish a year-wise breakup, without directing any verification by the AO. He further submitted that parity of treatment requires that the issue in dispute be restored back to the file of the AO with a direction, identical to that given in respect of the connected grounds at paras 5.2.17 and 5.2.19 of the CIT(A)’s order, to verify the assessee’s claim of duplication / overlap and grant consequential relief, rather than an outright confirmation of the addition without any verification whatsoever.
Ld. DR relied upon orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the by sustaining the addition of Rs. 22,90,631/- due to the fact that assessee did not furnish a year-wise breakup, without directing any verification by the AO. However, with regard to other additions, Ld. CIT(A) remitted back the issues to the file of the AO to verify the assessee’s claim of duplication / overlap and grant consequential relief. Thus, in view of the factual matrix, we deem it fit and proper to remit back the issue in dispute to the file of the AO for verification and decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, in accordance with law. We hold and direct accordingly.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.