District Organiser Tribal Welfare Bhopal v. ITO (TDS)

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: TDS default; Appeal delay

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• See the source-driven case record below.

Material facts and background

assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Bhopal. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is a Government department/office of Government of Madhya Pradesh working for the welfare of the Tribals.

impugned order was not served to the assessee in physical form despite the fact that the assessee has in the form No.35 has specifically denied the mode of notice through e-mail. The assessee was not having the knowledge of the impugned order till it has received the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act and came to know that the impugned order was passed on 13.12.2022 whereby the appeals of the assessee were dismissed.

Commissioner and other staff of the assessee were engaged in the election duty of State Legislative Assembly election and therefore, the appeals could be filed only on 28.12.2023. Hence, the Ld. AR has submitted that the delay in filing these appeals may be condoned as the assessee was not aware of the impugned order before October, 2023 when the assessee received the summons u/s 131 of the Act.

grounds of appeal raised for Assessment Year 2013-14 are reproduced as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in facts and in law in dismissing the appeal. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in dismissing the appeal as there is contradiction in the order passed by assessing officer regarding amount of payment made to Bhopal Development Authority. At one place of order, it is 157,22,600/whereas as per list, it is 231,38600/-. Thus, the basis for calculating tax demand is not confirmed. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in dismissing the appeal as payee, Bhopal Development Authority, has included all payments in its income and filed return of income. 4

ITA No.542 to 547/Ind/2023 District Organisor Tribal Welfare Bhopal 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in dismissing the appeal as I'd assessing officer has included many payments to Bhopal Development Authority in his order which were not made by appellant. Hence the order passed by the Income Tax Officer is arbitrary and bad in law as proper verification of records has not been done. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in dismissing the appeal as interest has been wrongly charged. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in in dismissing the appeal as appellant tried its best to collect Form 26A from Bhopal Development Authority but could not succeed. The appellant could not furnish its submissions before learned CIT(A) in absence of Form 26A. 7. That proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to appellant as appeal order has been passed ex-parte which is in violation of principle of natural justice. 8. As per portal, the appeal order was passed on 13.12.2022 but physical order was...

Appellant / assessee submissions

assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Bhopal. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is a Government department/office of Government of Madhya Pradesh working for the welfare of the Tribals.

Commissioner and other staff of the assessee were engaged in the election duty of State Legislative Assembly election and therefore, the appeals could be filed only on 28.12.2023. Hence, the Ld. AR has submitted that the delay in filing these appeals may be condoned as the assessee was not aware of the impugned order before October, 2023 when the assessee received the summons u/s 131 of the Act.

The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee

Organiser Tribal Welfare, Ujjain vs. ITO 51 ITJ 485. The Ld. AR has

issued the instructions that no demand visulaised under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer in charge of TDS that taxes have been paid by the deductee-assessee. The Ld. AR has further pointed out that the total amount was paid by the assessee during the year was only Rs.1,57,22,600/- however, the A.O has calculated the TDS default on the amount of Rs.2,31,38,660/- for Assessment Year 2013-14. Therefore, there are erroneous calculations made by the A.O while passing the orders u/s 201(1) of the Act. Similarly for the Assessment Year 2014-15 to 2017-18 the A.O has committed the same calculation mistakes. The Ld. AR has further pointed out that for the assessment year 2012-13 the CIT(A) fixed the date of hearing for 15.12.2022 whereas the impugned order was passed on 13.12.2022. In any case the appeal of the assessee were dismissed for non-prosecution by ex-parte order because the assessee did not received the notice which were sent only on the electronic mode. Hence, the Ld. AR has prayed that the impugned order of CIT(A) be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the A.O for fresh adjudication...

Revenue / respondent submissions

otherwise the A.O while passing the order u/s 201(1) of the Act has added the amount paid to the BDA by other departments and therefore, there is a factual mistake in computing the tax liability of this account. On the other hand Ld. DR has not seriously objected if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2.1 We have considered rival submissions and carefully perused the cause of delay explained by the assessee in the application as well as in the affidavit. The assessee explained the reasons for the delay that before the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act dated 27.09.2023 which was received by the assessee only in the month of October, 2023,

issued the instructions that no demand visulaised under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer in charge of TDS that taxes have been paid by the deductee-assessee. The Ld. AR has further pointed out that the total amount was paid by the assessee during the year was only Rs.1,57,22,600/- however, the A.O has calculated the TDS default on the amount of Rs.2,31,38,660/- for Assessment Year 2013-14. Therefore, there are erroneous calculations made by the A.O while passing the orders u/s 201(1) of the Act. Similarly for the Assessment Year 2014-15 to 2017-18 the A.O has committed the same calculation mistakes. The Ld. AR has further pointed out that for the assessment year 2012-13 the CIT(A) fixed the date of hearing for 15.12.2022 whereas the impugned order was passed on 13.12.2022. In any case the appeal of the assessee were dismissed for non-prosecution by ex-parte order because the assessee did not received the notice which were sent only on the electronic mode. Hence, the Ld. AR has prayed that the impugned order of CIT(A) be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the A.O for fresh adjudication...

The appellant The respondent CIT CIT(A) Departmental Representative Guard File By order

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

receives the fund from the Government for the welfare schemes including acquiring, maintaining hostels and schools buildings and therefore, the assessee being DDO transfers these funds to BDA which is the nodal agency for the said work.

invites the tenders from the contractors and awards the work to the contractors. The BDA made the payments to the contractors as per their bills and execution of work after deducting the tax at source (TDS) u/s 194C of the Act which was also credited to the account of the Central Government. He has further submitted that the assessee has explained before the A.O that the BDA has considered these payment as part of their income and also issued a declaration u/s 26A issued by the Accountant placed at page 77 to 92 of the paper book. Therefore, the Ld.AR has submitted that once the BDA has considered this amount as part of their income then in view of the first provisio to Section 201(1) of the Act the assessee cannot be held as assessee in default. In support of this contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd vs. CIT 293 ITR 226 as well as the decision of this Tribunal in case of District 6

issued the instructions that no demand visulaised under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer in charge of TDS that taxes have been paid by the deductee-assessee. The Ld. AR has further pointed out that the total amount was paid by the assessee during the year was only Rs.1,57,22,600/- however, the A.O has calculated the TDS default on the amount of Rs.2,31,38,660/- for Assessment Year 2013-14. Therefore, there are erroneous calculations made by the A.O while passing the orders u/s 201(1) of the Act. Similarly for the Assessment Year 2014-15 to 2017-18 the A.O has committed the same calculation mistakes. The Ld. AR has further pointed out that for the assessment year 2012-13 the CIT(A) fixed the date of hearing for 15.12.2022 whereas the impugned order was passed on 13.12.2022. In any case the appeal of the assessee were dismissed for non-prosecution by ex-parte order because the assessee did not received the notice which were sent only on the electronic mode. Hence, the Ld. AR has prayed that the impugned order of CIT(A) be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the A.O for fresh adjudication...

consideration some amounts received by the BDA from the departments other than the assessee and therefore, the calculation mistakes/errors cannot be ruled out. The assessee has now filed the certificate in Form No.26A placed at page 77 to 92 of paper book. Thus, all these factual aspects of the matter are required to be properly verified while computing the quantum of default if any 9

made by the assessee. The assessee has relied upon the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in case of District Organiser Tribal Welfare, Ujjain Vs ITO(supra) for the assessment year 2008-09 however, it is pertinent to note that the factual point that the BDA is also retaining some percentage on account of supervision charges was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal in the said case. Since the impugned orders were passed by the CIT(A) ex-parte therefore, these relevant details as well as the certificate in Form No.26A were not produced before the CIT(A) and consequently the same remained unexamined. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice the impugned orders of CIT(A) are set aside and the matters are remanded to the record of the A.O for fresh adjudication after considering the relevant details as well as certificates issued u/s 26A and verification of the factual mistake as pointed out by the assessee. Needless to say the assessee be given an appropriate opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order.

Operative decision and relief

issued the instructions that no demand visulaised under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer in charge of TDS that taxes have been paid by the deductee-assessee. The Ld. AR has further pointed out that the total amount was paid by the assessee during the year was only Rs.1,57,22,600/- however, the A.O has calculated the TDS default on the amount of Rs.2,31,38,660/- for Assessment Year 2013-14. Therefore, there are erroneous calculations made by the A.O while passing the orders u/s 201(1) of the Act. Similarly for the Assessment Year 2014-15 to 2017-18 the A.O has committed the same calculation mistakes. The Ld. AR has further pointed out that for the assessment year 2012-13 the CIT(A) fixed the date of hearing for 15.12.2022 whereas the impugned order was passed on 13.12.2022. In any case the appeal of the assessee were dismissed for non-prosecution by ex-parte order because the assessee did not received the notice which were sent only on the electronic mode. Hence, the Ld. AR has prayed that the impugned order of CIT(A) be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the A.O for fresh adjudication...

Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment

• Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd vs. CIT 293 ITR
• Ujjain vs. ITO 51 ITJ 485. The Ld. AR

This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.

Ratio and legal principle

The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Why this judgment matters

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Income Tax. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

Practitioner action points

• Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
• Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
• For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.

Full judgment and source trail

Read / download the clean local judgment copy

Related Finin2min guidance