The Cheif Manager, State Bank of India, Solan V. ITO (TDS), Solan

ITA 1087/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7205 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GEETINDER MANN SR DR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAGHAV GARG
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; TDS; Set aside

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH !, ' # . %.. . & , '( # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & DR. B.R.R.KUMAR, AM ./ ITA NO. 1087,1201 & 1202/CHD/2018 / A.Y.: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, SOLAN. VS THE ITO (TDS), SOLAN. ./ PAN/TAN NO: PTLS14534C / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAGHAV GARG, CA # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SMT.GEETINDER MANN, SR.DR $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 18.03.2019 '()* ! &/ D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.04.2019 ')/ ORDER PER BENCH A COMMON ORDER IS BEING PASSED IN THESE 3 APPEALS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS AS IN VIEW OF IDENTICAL GR IEVANCE, THESE WERE ARGUED BY THE PARTIES ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES AS AVAILABLE IN ITA 1087/CHD/2018. 2. HOWEVER BEFORE WE PROCEED TO ADDRESSING THE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN ITA 1087/CHD/201 8 THERE IS A DELAY OF 3 DAYS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY WHICH IS FIRST REQUIR ED TO BE ADDRESSED. SIMILARLY IN 1201/CHD/2018 AND ITA 1202/CHD/ 2018 THERE IS A DELAY OF 18 DAYS EACH WHICH ALSO FIRST NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. 3. THE LD. AR ADDRESSING THE DELAY OF 3 DAYS IN ITA 10 87/CHD/2018 RELYING UPON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER OF TH E BANK SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY HAS OCCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS : 1. WE HAVE RECEIVED THE ORDER DATED 12/06/2018 ON 21/0 6/2018, THEREFORE THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE APPEAL BY 21/08/2018. 2. DUE TO UNEXPECTED NATIONAL HOLIDAY DECLARED ON 17/0 8/2018 I.E. FRIDAY DUE TO DEATH OF LATE SH. ATAL BIHARI VAJPAI JI, THE FORMS COULD NOT BE DISPATCHED ON 17/08/2018 BUT WAS ACTUALLY DISPATCHED ON MONDAY I.E. 20/08/20 18 AND CAUSING THE DELAY OF 3 DAYS AS RECEIVED ON 23/08/2018. 3. WE FURTHER APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY AND REQUEST THE LD. TRIBUNAL TO CONDONE THE DELAY. ITA S 1087,1201&1202/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 TO 2011-12 PAGE 2 OF 3 4. ADDRESSING THE DELAY OF 18 DAYS IN THE REMAINING 2 APP EALS IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION RELYING ON THE RESPECTIVE APPLICATIONS OF CHI EF MANAGER OF THE BANK THAT THE DELAY SO OCCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE MISTAKENLY FILED ONE APPEAL AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER WHICH PERTAINED TO 3 YEARS AND THUS ON REALISING THE MISTAKE SUO-MOTO THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT THE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS BY FILING TWO SEPARATE APPEALS FOR THE OTHER TWO YEARS AS A RESULT OF THIS THER E IS AN ADDED DELAY OF 15 DAYS WHICH HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL DELAY. FOR READY REFERENCE THE RELEVANT PORTION IS EXTRACTED FROM THE CON DONATION OF DELAY APPLICATION PLACED ON RECORD: 1. WE HAVE RECEIVED THE ORDER DATED 12/06/2018 ON 21/0 6/2018, THEREFORE THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE APPEAL BY 21/08/2018. 2. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WAS A SIN GLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT (A)OF 3 ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. AY 2009-10, AY 2010-1 1 & AY 2011-12, SINGLE APPEAL WAS FILED FOR ALL THE YEARS INADVERTENTLY ON 20/08/ 2018. 3. ON SUO MOTO REALISING THE DEFECT, THE APPELLANT FIL ED ALL THE APPEALS FOR EACH YEAR INDEPENDENTLY ON 07/09/2018 IN CONTINUATION OF APPE AL FILED ON 20/08/2018, CAUSING THE DELAY OF 18 DAYS. SINCE IT WAS A SECRETARIAL MISTAK E, YOUR GOOD OFFICE IS REQUESTED TO KINDLY CONDONE THE DELAY OF 18 DAYS. 5. RELYING ON THESE FACTS SET OUT IN THE APPLICATION, IT W AS HIS PRAYER THAT THE DELAY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AS FAR AS THE FIRST APPEAL IS CONCERNED AND FOR THE REMAINING TWO APPEALS ON ACCOUNT OF AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE OF THE ASSE SSEE, THE DELAY HAS OCCURRED. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE DE LAY MAY BE CONDONED. 6. THE LD. SR.DR CONSIDERING THE RECORD HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. ON CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE AVAILABLE AND CONSID ERING THE APPLICATION ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE, ADMITTEDLY THE DELAY HAS OCCURRED IN ITA NO. 1087 /CHD/2018 FOR REASONS BEYOND THE ASSESSEES CONTROL. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN REGARD TO THE REMAINING TWO APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE MISTAKENLY FILED ON LY ONE APPEAL ORIGINALLY AND SINCE THE ORDER THAT WAS A CONSOLIDATED OR DER FOR THREE YEARS, NECESSARY RECTIFICATION WAS REQUIRED WHICH HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. ACCORDINGLY, ACCEPTING THE BONA FIDE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DELAY IS CONDONED IN EACH OF THESE APPEALS . WHILE SO HOLDING WE HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THAT NO UNDUE ADVANTA GE HAS BEEN DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IF THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND NO DISADVANTAGE IS ITA S 1087,1201&1202/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 TO 2011-12 PAGE 3 OF 3 VISITED UPON THE REVENUE IN CASE THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS DECIDED ON MERITS AS NO VESTED RIGHT OF THE REVENUE IS FO UND TO BE DISTURBED BY WAY OF CONDONATION OF THE DELAY. ACCORDINGLY , THE DELAY IS CONDONED. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES AND THE PARTIES WERE DIRECTED TO ARGUE THE APPEALS ON MERITS. 8. THE LD. AR ADDRESSING GROUND NO. 1 RAISED IN THE PRE SENT APPEALS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS IDENTICAL IN EACH OF THESE APPEALS. ACCO RDINGLY, THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED IN ITA 1087/CHD/2018 MAY BE CONSID ERED FOR SIMILAR REQUEST IN THE REMAINING TWO APPEALS. ADDRESSING TH E SAID GROUND IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). THE RELEVANT GROUND ADDRESSED BY THE LD. AR IS EX TRACTED HEREUNDER FROM ITA-1087/CHD/2018 : THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING MERELY 20 DAYS TIME TO THE APPELLANT WHERE THE INFORMATION TO BE GATHERED FROM MANY PERSONS AN D BELONGS TO 10 YEARS BACK. 8.1 ADDRESSING THE SAME IT WAS HIS LIMITED PRAYER THAT THE TIME GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) WAS NOT ADEQUATE AND THUS IT WAS HIS PRAY ER THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) IN ORDER TO GRANT AN EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BY GRANTING A REAS ONABLE TIME TO THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE THE NECESSARY AND SUPPORTING EV IDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE SAID PRAYER WAS NOT OPPOSED BY THE LD. SR.DR. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE MERITS OF THE EVIDENCE S WHICH THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO PLACE ON RECORD, THE IMPUGNED ORDE R IS SET ASIDE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PA RTIES BEFORE THE BENCH. SAID ORDER WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.04. 2019. SD/- SD/- ( . %.. . & ) ( ! ) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (DIVA SINGH) '( #/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' #/ JUDICIAL MEMBER + , (+ ! ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT -3. $ / / CIT4. $ / ()/ THE CIT(A) 5. -23 4, & 4, 67839/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 38 :%/ GUARD FILE (+ $ / BY ORDER, ; #/ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR