2023 (10) TMI 1410 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Remits Case for Re-evaluation of TDS Evidence, Emphasizes Complete Details for Statistical Appeals.

United India Insurance Co. Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Panaji Goa

United India Insurance Co. Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Panaji Goa - TMI Issues: Appeal against delay in filing, non-deduction of TDS on medi-claim payments, non-deduction of TDS on contract payments to co-insurance companies, failure to submit evidence in support of documentary evidence, and lack of representation during appeal hearing.Analysis:1. Delay in Filing Appeal:The appellant filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2014-15, which were delayed by 22 days. The appellant attributed the delay to not receiving the appellate order and becoming aware of it later while checking the Income Tax portal. The delay was deemed condonable as it was not wilful or wanton, and the appeals were admitted for adjudication after the delay was condoned.2. Non-Deduction of TDS on Medi-claim Payments:The Assessing Officer found the appellant to be in default for non-deduction of TDS on alleged medi-claim payments made on behalf of employees. The appellant failed to provide necessary details or evidence regarding the nature of the policy or exemptions applicable to the perquisite portion. Consequently, the Assessing Officer calculated the TDS amount payable, including interest, leading to a demand for the assessment year 2012-13.3. Non-Deduction of TDS on Contract Payments to Co-insurance Companies:Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the Assessing Officer determined the TDS to be made on contract payments to co-insurance companies, which the appellant failed to deduct. This resulted in the raising of a demand for the said assessment year.4. Failure to Submit Evidence:The appellant did not submit any written submissions or documentary evidence in support of their case before the ld. CIT(A), leading to the confirmation of the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for both assessment years.5. Lack of Representation During Appeal Hearing:During the appeal hearing before the Tribunal, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. Despite this, after hearing the ld. DR and reviewing the records, the Tribunal decided to proceed with the appeals on merits. The Tribunal noted the lack of response from the appellant against the show cause notice and the absence of any evidence or explanation regarding the TDS deductions.6. Judgment and Direction:The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The appellant was granted another opportunity to be heard and directed to furnish complete details with evidence regarding the TDS deductions before the Assessing Officer. Consequently, both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.This comprehensive analysis highlights the key issues addressed in the judgment, covering the delay in filing the appeal, non-deduction of TDS on various payments, failure to submit evidence, and the subsequent directions given by the Tribunal for further proceedings.