AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM
Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the CIT(A)-30 Delhi for the A.Y. 2015-16. Grounds of appeal are as under :-
“1.That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred as "CIT(A)"], is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.
2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating and dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution by passing appellate order on 11.02.2026.
3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal thereby confirming the demand of Rs. 10,44,38,185/-by treating the appellant as deemed to be an assessee in default for non-payment of tax deducted at source of Rs 4,28,02,535/- detected 3 during the course of survey proceedings and interest payable thereon of Rs. 6,16,35,650/- u/s 201(1A) without appreciating the reply and documentary evidences furnished by the appellant that it has duly deposited tax deducted at source into the government account and there is no non-payment of TDS for the financial year 2014-15.
4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal thereby confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 201/201(1A) raising demand of Rs. 10,44,38,185/- on non deduction of tax at 4 source of Rs 4,28,02,535/- and interest payable thereon of Rs. 6,16,35,650/- in arbitrary and mechanical manner without appreciating that no opportunity was afforded to the appellant by the Ld, AO to explain the same by issuing show cause notice, which is gross violation of principle of natural justice.
5.That the grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other.”
During proceedings none appeared on behalf of the assessee. From the record it is found that the Ld. CIT(A) gave ten opportunities to the assessee by fixing the date of hearing but assessee/ representative of the assessee did not appear on any occasion so the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and he has decided the appeal on the basis of material available on record.
Per contra the ld. DR relied on the order of the authorities below.
We are of this considered view that before deciding the case against the assessee natural justice demands that before taking any decision for passing an order against any applicant adequate opportunity of being heard should be provided. Therefore, in our considered view the assessee deserves one more opportunity. Accordingly, this case is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee as required under law. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the revenue in filing all the details and documents in time to get the case adjudicated at the earliest. The matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.