2022 (9) TMI 75 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty proceedings u/s 272A(2)(g) - assessee had failed to issue TDS certificate to the deductee within the prescribed time u/s 203 - HELD THAT - The perusal of CIT(A) order reveals that CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits. Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of I. T. Act mandate the CIT(A) to state the points in dispute and thereafter assign the reasons in support of his conclusion. We are of the view that by dismissing the appeal without considering the issue on merits, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the mandate required in Sub Section (6) of Section 250. It is also a well settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be offered to the parties and no parties should be condemned unheard. We set aside the impugned order of CIT(A) dated 17.06.2019 and restore the issue to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issues after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to furnish the details called for by the lower authorities. In view of our decision to restore the issue to CIT(A), we are not adjudicating on merits the grounds raised by the assessee. Thus the ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Failure to issue TDS certificate within prescribed time leading to penalty under section 272A(2)(g) of the Act. Appeal against penalty order before CIT(A) dismissed without considering merits, leading to violation of natural justice principles.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the penalty order dated 29.04.2017 imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 272A(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act for failure to issue TDS certificate within the prescribed time. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case, leading to a violation of natural justice principles. The grounds raised by the assessee included challenges to the order of the CIT(A) on various legal and factual aspects.

The learned Authorized Representative (AR) representing the assessee highlighted that an adjournment was sought before the CIT(A) due to the ill health of the AR's wife, but it was not granted, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal without a decision on merits. The AR requested another opportunity to present the case and assured that all required details would be furnished. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) supported the AO's order.

Upon hearing the submissions, the Appellate Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without addressing the merits of the case, contrary to the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing a sufficient opportunity for hearing and not condemning any party unheard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee a proper hearing opportunity and directing the submission of necessary details. The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee, allowing the appeal solely for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal for statistical purposes, with the decision to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after ensuring the principles of natural justice were followed.