9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/AHD/2016, the assessee has challenged the validity of penalty levied under section 271C of the Act. As both the appeals are arising of the order passed by ITO-TDS under section 201(1)/201(1A) and are interconnected with each other, therefore, with the consent of the parties, both the appeals were heard together and decided by consolidated order. 2. In ITA No. 3160/AHD/2014 the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "I. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the Order u/s. u/s and 201(1A) of the Act passed by ITO(T.DX) without allowing natural opportunity to appellant. The Order be held as null and void II. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in holding that payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de in the block of building of the assessee under the Schedule of fixed asset of and the amount was paid by assessee on behalf of Jitendrabhai Patel, which is a benefit passed off in kind and attracts the provision of section 2(22)(e) i.e. deemed dividend. The assessee was liable to deduct tax at source of Rs. 87,967/- i.e. @ 20% under section 194 of the Act. The AO further noted that assessee company has also given a loan of Rs. 35.50 lakhs to Rajeshbhai Patel, Director and having shareholding of 15.41%, this payment also attracts the provision of section 2(22)(e) being deemed dividend and that assessee was liable to deduct tax at source @20%. On the basis of above observation the ITO-TDS issued a show cause notice to the assessee on 19.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O served show cause notice on the assessee on 20.03.2013 fixing the date of hearing on 23.03.2013. The date 23.03.2013 was Saturday, and office of ITO, TDS was closed. The assessee could not furnished any explanation. The AO passed the order within the three (03) days i.e. on 26.03.2013, without serving further notice. Similarly, the ld. CIT(A) fixed the date of hearing on 03.06.2014 when assessee sought adjournment. No further notice at the address given on Form 35, for the purpose of serving the notice, was served upon the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the action of AO by taking view that no compliance was made. The learned AR for the assessee submits that no fair and proper opportunity was given by the Lower Authorities. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was closed and that order was passed on 26.03.2013. Similarly, the ld. CIT(A) in para 2 of the impugned order noted that hearing was fixed on 03.06.2014 on which the assessee sought adjournment. The ld. CIT(A) further recorded "the case was fixed for hearing on 12.08.2014. In the meantime notice dated 07.08.2014 was issued fixing the case on 22.08.2014". The ld. CIT(A) noted that the notice was duly served on 07.08.2014. Before us, the learned AR for the assessee vehemently argued that for service of notice, assessee has given the address of his Counsel for the purpose of service of notice, no notice at the address mentioned in Form-3 was served upon the counsel of assessee. 8. We have noted that the ld. CIT(A) allegedly fixed the hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
