Discrepancies in TDS deduction: ITAT Remands Matter due to Lack of Proper Hearing [Read Order]
The tribunal observed that CIT(A) failed to provide a fair opportunity for the assessee to present its case, leading to the matter being remanded for fresh adjudication
![Discrepancies in TDS deduction: ITAT Remands Matter due to Lack of Proper Hearing [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Discrepancies-TDS-deduction-ITAT-Lack-of-Proper-Hearing-TAXSCAN.jpg "Discrepancies in TDS deduction: ITAT Remands Matter due to Lack of Proper Hearing [Read Order]")
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] after observing that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present its case regarding TDS deduction discrepancies. Shree Construction (assessee), a partnership firm, had declared an income of ₹4,35,425 for Assessment Year 2013-14 in its return...
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] after observing that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present its case regarding TDS deduction discrepancies.
Shree Construction (assessee), a partnership firm, had declared an income of ₹4,35,425 for Assessment Year 2013-14 in its return filed on September 30, 2013. The assessment was originally completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, determining a total income of ₹15,36,750.
Become a Listed Company through SME IPO - Batch 3 Register Now!
The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the firm had not deducted TDS on expenses amounting to ₹4,05,75,513. The AO noted various other discrepancies. The AO determined a total income of ₹6.52 crore which was higher than the declared income.
Aggrieved by order of the AO, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A), challenging the additions made under Section 40(a)(ia) and other provisions. However, the
CIT(A) upheld the AO’s decision, stating that the assessee failed to produce supporting evidence.
Become a Listed Company through SME IPO - Batch 3 Register Now!
Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before ITAT. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was not given opportunity to present the case. The counsel also submitted that the assessee is now in a position to substantiate the case with documentary evidence.
The two-member bench, comprising Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Shri Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member), observed that the principles of natural justice were not upheld in this case.
Read More: Madras High Court Revives GST Registration with Conditions [Read Order]
The tribunal ruled that the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, ensuring that the assessee is given a fair chance to present relevant documents and explanations.
The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to call for a remand report from the AO if necessary and ensure that the case is adjudicated in accordance with the law. The tribunal also advised the assessee to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
Become a Listed Company through SME IPO - Batch 3 Register Now!
Therefore, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. Thereby the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
