2018 (2) TMI 2102 - AT - Income Tax

Intimation u/s 154 - interest charged u/s 201(1A) for late payment of TDS by the assessee company - HELD THAT - When undisputedly order / intimation has been passed u/s 154 by CPC TDS in a mechanical manner without providing an opportunity of being head to the assessee and thereby enhanced the tax liability of the assessee company, provisions contained u/s 154 (3) of the Act are attracted making it obligatory on the part of the Revenue to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee company. So impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and consequently file is ordered to be remanded to AO to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee company. Assessee appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Levying interest on late payments of TDS ignoring the stay order of the High Court.
2. Ignoring judicial precedents and decision for the previous assessment year.
3. Confirming actions in a mechanical, arbitrary, and ad-hoc manner without considering hardship.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Levying interest on late payments of TDS
The appellant contested the interest levied on late TDS payments, citing a High Court stay order preventing recoveries. The CIT (A) confirmed the action but directed the AO to allow the appellant to explain the interest computation. The Tribunal found the order passed by CPC-TDS to be mechanical without providing the appellant an opportunity to be heard. As per section 154(3) of the Income-tax Act, the Revenue should have given the appellant a chance to be heard. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the CIT (A) order unsustainable and remanded the case to the AO for fresh consideration after providing the appellant with a hearing opportunity.

Issue 2: Ignoring judicial precedents and previous decisions
The appellant argued that the CIT (A) erred by disregarding judicial precedents and the decision for the previous assessment year without sufficient reasons. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue specifically in its judgment, but it can be inferred that the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument based on the remand order issued due to procedural lapses in the CIT (A) decision.

Issue 3: Mechanical and arbitrary confirmation of actions
The appellant contended that the CIT (A) confirmed actions in a mechanical, arbitrary, and ad-hoc manner, failing to consider the financial hardship faced by the assessee. The Tribunal did not directly address the aspect of financial hardship but focused on the procedural irregularity of not providing the appellant with a hearing opportunity. By allowing the appeal for statistical purposes, the Tribunal acknowledged the importance of due process and the right to be heard in such matters.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment primarily revolved around procedural lapses in the CIT (A) decision regarding the interest levied on late TDS payments. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of providing the appellant with a fair hearing opportunity as mandated by the law, ultimately leading to the remand of the case for fresh consideration.