PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CHANDPOLE BAZAR, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, JAIPUR

ITA 05/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9250 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANCHAL MEENA ACIT
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Condonation of delay; Bonafide mistake; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,B JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 3 TO 5/JP/2019 FINANCIAL YEARS: 2009-10 (QTR. 2 ND OF FROM 26Q) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK CHANDPOLE BAZAR, S.C. ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ITO, TDS-1, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: JPRP0 1946 A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANDEEP JHANWAR (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MISS CHANCHAL MEENA (ACIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 10/08/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13/08/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BENCH: THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THREE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-III, JAIPUR ALL DATED 09.11.2018 ARISING FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR 2 ND 3 RD AND 4 TH QUARTERS OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE ASSESS EE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS IN THESE APPEALS:- ITA NO. 3 TO 5/JP/2019 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. ITO (TDS) 2 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-3, JAIPUR, HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE'S REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPE AL AGAINST ORDER U/S 201(1) & 201(1A). 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-3, JAIPUR, HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING T HE RELIEF AGAINST WRONGLY HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT OF NOT DEDUCTING THE TAX AT SOURCE OUT OF INTEREST PAYMENT S TO ZILA WATER AND SANITATION COMMITTEE, ZAILA PARISHAD COLL ECTRATE, JAIPUR OF RS. 2,80,152/-AND THEREBY RAISING OF DEMA ND U/S 201(1) OF RS. 2,88,557/- AND DEMAND U/S 201(1A) OF RS. 2,5 9,701/-, TOTALING TO DEMAND OF RS. 5,48,258/-. 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-3, JAIPUR, HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING T HE RELIEF AGAINST WRONGLY HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT OF NOT DEDUCTING THE TAX AT SOURCE OUT OF INTEREST PAY MENTS TO CEO, ZILA PARISHAD RDS, JAIPUR-MPLAD-K.L. BALMIKI O F RS. 5,734 AND THEREBY RAISING OF DEMAND U/S 201(1) OF RS. 5,9 07/- AND DEMAND U/S 201(1A) OF RS. 5,316/-, TOTALING TO DEMA ND OF RS. 11,223/-. 4. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-3, JAIPUR, HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING T HE RELIEF AGAINST WRONGLY HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT OF NOT DEDUCTING THE TAX AT SOURCE OUT OF INTEREST PAYMENT S TO CIVIL MAGISTRATE (SR. SEC.) & A.C.J.M, JAIPUR OF RS. 4,10 1/- AND THEREBY RAISING OF DEMAND U/S 201(1) OF RS. 4,224/- AND DEM AND U/S 201(1A) OF RS. 3,802/-, TOTALING TO DEMAND OF RS. 8 ,026/-. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS LD. DR AND C AREFULLY PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDERS DATED 30.03.2017 U/S 201(1) &201(1A) OF THE IT ACT IN RESPECT OF 4 QUARTERS OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 REL EVANT TO ASSESSMENT ITA NO. 3 TO 5/JP/2019 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. ITO (TDS) 3 YEAR 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDERS PA SSED BY THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER, FILED ONLY ONE APPEA L AGAINST THE FOUR ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF 4 QUARTERS. T HE LD. CIT(A) TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE APPEAL AGAI NST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF FIRST QUARTER OF FIN ANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 AND THEREBY DECIDED THE SAID APPEAL. ON THIS OBJECT ION RAISED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED THREE SEPARATE OF APPEALS ON 19.09.2018 WITH AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY EXPLAINING THE CAUSE OF DELAY AS BONAFIDE MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE TAX CONSULTANT TO FILE ONE APPEAL INSTEAD OF 4 APPEALS. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT SI NCE THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO WAS IN RESPECT OF THE TOTAL SUM OF 4 QUARTERS AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE MISTAKENLY FILED ONE APPEAL INSTEAD OF 4 APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT MISTAKE WAS CO MMITTED BY IT WHILE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THIS EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE FOR FILING BELATEDLY APPEALS IN RESPEC T OF THESE 3 QUARTERS AND DISMISSED ALL THREE APPEALS WITH AN IDENTICAL R EASONING IN PARA 3 AS UNDER:- 3. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE CONDONATION D ELAY PETITION. I FIND THAT THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT NOT SUBMITTED ANY JUSTIFIED REASON FOR DELAY OF 502 DAYS. HE ONLY STATED THAT A SSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED QUARTERLY AND COMBINED APPEAL FILE D FOR ALL THE FOUR QUARTERS ON 20.04.2017 WHICH IS NOT AS PER LAW AS SEPARATE ITA NO. 3 TO 5/JP/2019 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. ITO (TDS) 4 DEMAND NOTICE WERE ISSUED THE EACH QUARTER, SO THE APPEAL WILL BE FILED SEPARATELY FOR EACH QUARTER BUT APPELLANT NOT FILED. THEREFORE I AM THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO GENUINE C AUSE WHICH PREVENT THE APPELLANT TO FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME. H ENCE, I REJECT THE CONDONATION DELAY PETITION FOR 502 DAYS AND THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AT ADMISSION STAGE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ORIGINAL APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL FOUR QUARTERS ON 20.04.2017 WAS WITHIN THE PERIOD O F LIMITATION AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE B Y TREATING THE SAME AS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO FOR FI RST QUARTER OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE DULLY FILED TH E APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION HOWEVER, DUE TO BONAFIDE MISTA KE AND THAT TOO ON THE PART OF THE TAX CONSULTANT OF THE ASSESSEE TO F ILE ONE APPEAL INSTEAD OF 4 SEPARATE APPEALS FOR EACH QUARTER ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE CAUSE OF DELAY WHICH IS FACTUALLY COR RECT AS DUE TO BONAFIDE MISTAKE THE ASSESSEE FILED ONLY ONE APPEAL INSTEAD OF FOUR SEPARATE APPEALS AGAINST QUARTERLY ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 502 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSING THE APPEALS IN LIMINE ARE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTERS ARE ITA NO. 3 TO 5/JP/2019 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. ITO (TDS) 5 REMITTED TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDI NG THE SAME ON MERITS. NEEDS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN AN APPROPRI ATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE PASSING THE FRESH ORDER. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/08/2020. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 13/08/2020. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, TDS-1, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 3 TO 5/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR