Appellant contests tax default ruling, claims unfair treatment despite TDS payments. Appeal withdrawn, dismissed without objection.

The appellant challenged the Ld. CIT(A)'s order regarding sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2009-10, arguing that the appeal was dismissed as belated without considering merits. The appellant contended that being treated as an assessee in default was unjust, as most alleged TDS discrepancies were paid. After seeking to modify appeal grounds, the appellant withdrew the appeal during the hearing, leading to its dismissal without objection.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for Assessment Year 2009-10.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, alleging that the appeal was not decided on merits and was dismissed as belated, despite providing justifiable reasons for the delay. The appellant argued that the decision was erroneous, contrary to facts, and against the law. The appellant contended that the appeal should have been considered on its merits.

2. The appellant further contended that the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order under sections 201(1)/201(1A) without adjudicating the appeal on merits, leading to a demand of Rs. 13,42,670. The appellant argued that this denial of a proper opportunity to be heard violated the principles of natural justice and legal provisions.

3. The appellant asserted that they should not be treated as an assessee in default under sections 201/201(1A) as they had paid most of the alleged short/non-deduction of TDS, except for nominal amounts. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court decision to support their position that the department cannot recover tax again from the deductor if the deductee has already paid taxes on the income.

4. Additionally, the appellant raised concerns about the demand for interest under section 201(1A) without considering that the deductees had paid taxes on time. The appellant argued that such demands were unjustified given the circumstances.

5. The appellant sought permission to modify the grounds of appeal. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel expressed disinterest in pursuing the appeal, and the appeal was withdrawn with no objection from the Ld. DR. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, and the decision was pronounced in the open court at the hearing's conclusion.

---