IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM Assessment Year: 2016-17 Muthoot Syndicate Nidhi Ltd. .......... Appellant South Block, Ground Floor, Muthoot Floors Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram 695014 [PAN: AACCM9379D]

vs.

DCIT, Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent Assessee by: Rajeev R., CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 14.08.2025

O R D E R

Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai [CIT(A)]

dated 30.04.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Nidhi company accepting fixed deposits from the general public and grants loans as per the interest rates fixed by the firm. The ITO/TDS Thiruvananthapuram had conducted survey operations in the business premises of the appellant and found that the appellant had failed to deduct TDS on the interest paid of Rs.2,19,99,137/-. Accordingly, the appellant was treated as an ‘assessee in default’

and demanded TDS of Rs. 43,99,828/- for FY 2015-16.

3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that there was no obligation on the part of the appellant company to deduct tax on interest paid to a person to whom aggregate payment made in a year did not exceed Rs. 5,000/- as it is below the threshold limit. However, the CIT(A), without considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant company dismissed the appeal by passing cryptic order.

4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. at the outset we find that the CIT(A) had passed cryptic order without taking into consideration the submissions made before him and confirmed the order passed by the TDS Officer. In our considered opinion the order passed by the CIT(A) does not meet the requirement of a reasoned order, was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the order passed by the CIT(A) is set aside and remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the issues in the appeal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14^th August, 2025.

Sd/- Sd/-

(PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) (INTURI RAMA RAO)

JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 14^th August, 2025 n.p.

Copy to:

1. The Appellant

2. The Respondent

3. The Pr. CIT concerned

4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin

5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin