MICM NET-SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., Mumbai V. A.C.I.T. - CPC - TDS, Mumbai

ITA 1137/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0426 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARAT P SHAH
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Wrong claim; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay; TDS
• Section: 234E; 200A; 201; 13

Judgement Text

P A G E | 1 ITA NOS. 1137 - 1140/MUM/2018 A.Y 2014 - 15 MICM NET SOLUTIONS P.LTD . VS. ACIT, CPC - TDS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA , ACCOUNTAN MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 1137 TO 1140 /MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 14 - 15 ) M/S. MICM N ET SOLUTIONS P VT. LTD., 5/6 AZAD NAGAR SHOPPING CENTRE, 1 ST FL OOR , STATION ROAD, GOREGAON (W), MUMBAI - 400062. VS. A CIT, C PC, TDS, AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR - 3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD,U.P - 201010 . PAN : A A BCM9968M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI BHARAT P.SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY : SMT. JOTHI LAKSHMI NA YAK, DR DATE OF HEARING: 1 1 .12 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 1 8 .12.2019 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM THE P RESENT APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDER S PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 59 , MUMBAI, DATED 2 0/12/2017 , WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE RESPECTIVE INTIMATION S ISSUED BY THE CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL TDS (FOR SHORT, CPC) U/S. 200A OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 ( FOR SHO RT, THE ACT) FOR THE RESPECTIVE FOUR QUARTER S PERTAINING TO A.Y 2014 - 15 . AS COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THE CAPTIONED APPEALS, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE BEING TAKEN UP AND DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. W E SHALL FIRST ADVERT TO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y 20 14 - 15 IN ITA NO. 1137/MUM/2018 AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE CPC - TDS , G H AZIABAD FOR THE 3 RD QUARTER OF THE AFOREMENTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE US : - P A G E | 2 ITA NOS. 1137 - 1140/MUM/2018 A.Y 2014 - 15 MICM NET SOLUTIONS P.LTD . VS. ACIT, CPC - TDS 1. WHETHER ON FACTS AND IN LAW COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS NON - CONDONABLE WHEN SERVICE OF PENALTY ORDER BY ELECTRONIC MODE ON 02/07/2014 FOR 26Q Q3 ITSELF IS NOT VALID BECAUSE SERVICE OF NOTIC E, ORDER, ETC BY ELECTRONIC MODE HAS BEEN VALIDATED BY INSERTION OF RULE 127 OF INCOME TAX RULES W.E.F. 2 ND DECEMBER, 2015 ONLY. 2. THE LEVY OF LATE FILING FEES U/S 234E FOR DELAY IN FILING THE TDS STATEMENTS CANNOT BE LEVIED BEFORE 1ST JUNE, 2015 SINCE THERE WAS NO ENABLING PROVISION FOR RAISING SUCH DEMAND OF LATE FILING OF STATEMENT BEFORE 1ST JUNE, 2015. 3. MOREOVER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS HAS DISMISSED OUR APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT DELAY IN FILING APPEAL IS NON CONDONABLE. HOWEVER AS MENTIONED BY CPC IN THEIR LETTER DATED 18.09.2017 TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS THAT, THIS STATEMENT HAS UNDERGONE REPROCESSING DUE TO CHANGE IN PROCESSING LOGIC OF CALCULATING THE LATE PAYMENT INTEREST. WITH THE RESULT OF THIS REPROCESSIN G, DEMAND OF LATE PAYMENT INTEREST REDUCED FOR THIS STATEMENT AND INTIMATION WAS REGENERATED AND SERVED ON REGISTERED EMAIL ([e-mail], [e-mail]) OF DEDUCTOR. IT SUGGESTS THAT REPROCESS IS DUE TO SOME ERROR ON THE PART OF CPC AND NOT BECAUSE OF ASSESSE'S MISTAKE. S O THE APPEAL FILED ON 29.12.2016 AGAINST REPROCESSED ORDER RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE ON 05.12.2016 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN TIME. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FILED ITS TDS RETURN FOR THE 3 RD QUARTER IN FORM 24Q ON 27 - 06 - 2014. AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE I NTIMATION UNDER SEC. 200A OF THE ACT , WAS RECEIVED BY IT FROM THE CPC - TDS ONLY ON 05 - 12 - 2016 . IN THE BACKDROP OF T H E AFORESAID CLAIM , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AS THE AFORESAID INTIMATION U/S 200A COULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED LATEST BY 31 - 03 - 2016 , THEREFORE, THE SAME HAVING BEEN ISSUED BY CPC - TDS ON 05.12.2016 WAS BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD PRESC RIBED IN THE PROVISO TO SEC. 200A(1) OF THE ACT . IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION COULD HAVE BEEN PASSED LATEST BY 31 - 03 - 2016, THEREFORE, THE SAME HAVING BEEN ISSUED BY THE CPC - TDS ON 05.12.2016 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 3. AS THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INSPIRE M UCH OF CONFIDENCE, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) CARRIED OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS FROM THE CPC - TDS. ON THE BASIS OF VERIFICATION S , IT WAS GATHERED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE CPC - TDS HAD AS ON 02.07.2014 PROCESSED THE AFORESAID TDS RETURN FOR THE 3 RD QUARTER THAT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM 24Q ON 27.06.2014. ALSO, IT WAS INFORMED BY THE CPC - TDS THAT AN INTIMATION NO. TDS/1314/24Q/D/100010279378 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME DATE , W HEREIN A DEMAND OF RS. 32,600/ - WAS RAISED ON P A G E | 3 ITA NOS. 1137 - 1140/MUM/2018 A.Y 2014 - 15 MICM NET SOLUTIONS P.LTD . VS. ACIT, CPC - TDS THE ASSES SEE FOR LATE FILING OF THE AFORESAID TDS RETURN . ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS CONVEYED BY THE CPC - TDS , THAT THE AFORESAID REGULAR STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT ENVISAGED IN SEC. 200A(1) OF THE ACT. ALSO, THE CIT(A) W AS INFORMED BY THE CPC - T DS THAT THE INTIMATION U/S. 200A WAS SERVED /DROPPED WELL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD AT THE REGISTERED E - MAIL ADDRESS/E - MAIL ID S OF THE ASSESSEE VIZ. [e-mail] AND [e-mail] . IT WAS FURTHER CONVEYED THAT T HE INTIMATION UNDER SEC. 200A OF THE ORIGINAL PROCESSING WAS SERVED/DROPPED AT [e-mail] , I.E THE E - MAIL ADDRESS THAT WAS P ROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTOR WHILE REGISTERING WITH THE CPC - TDS , AND ON WHICH THE ACTIVATION LINK WAS SENT . THE AFORESAID INFORMATION SO GATHERED WAS FORWARDED BY THE CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS COUNTER COMMENT S . IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE REBUTTED THE CLAIM OF THE CPC - TDS THAT IT HAD PROCESSED THE TDS RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE ON 02.07.2104, AND SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY SUCH INTIMATION U/S 200A FROM THE CPC - TDS . IN ORDER TO SUPPORT ITS AFORESAID CLAIM , AN UNDATED AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS FILED . APART THEREFROM , IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER RULE 127 OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES, 1962, THE ELECTRONIC INTIMATION OF AN ORDER WAS VALID ONLY AFTER 01 - 04 - 201 5 . ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS SU BMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN FILED BEYOND THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD , THEN THE DELAY TH E REIN INVOLVED MAY BE CONDONED. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE AFORESA ID CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT NOT ONLY THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION U/S. 200A WAS PASSED BY THE CPC - TDS WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD PERMITTED BY THE STATUTE, BUT WAS ALSO SENT/FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME DAY AT ITS REGISTERED E - MAIL ADDRESS . IN FACT, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER STATED THAT IT HAD NOT RECEIVED THE SAID INTIMATION AT ITS E - MAIL ADDRESS . ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID FACTS, THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE INTIMA TION CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AT ITS REGISTERED E - MAIL ADDRESS. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY HIM, THAT THE INTIMATION U/S 200A OF THE ORIGINAL PROCESSING OF THE TDS RETURN WAS SENT BY THE CPC - TDS AT THE E - MAIL ADDRESS THAT WAS FURNISHED AND GOT REGISTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE CPC - TDS. OBSERVING, THAT IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CPC - TDS HAD DROPPED/SERVED THE INTIMATION U/S 200A AT SOME RANDOM E - MAIL ID /ADDRESS OF THE TAX DEDUCTOR , THE CIT (A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE AS PER ITS CONVENIENCE COULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO P A G E | 4 ITA NOS. 1137 - 1140/MUM/2018 A.Y 2014 - 15 MICM NET SOLUTIONS P.LTD . VS. ACIT, CPC - TDS DISCLAIM THE ELECTRONIC PROCEDURE OF SERVICE OF THE ORDER. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, THE CIT ( A ) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS THE INTIMATION UNDER SEC. 200A WAS DELIVE RED AND TRANSMITTED AT THE REGISTERED E - MAIL ADDRESS THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION WITH TRACES , THEREFORE, IT WAS INCORRECT ON ITS PART TO CANVASS THAT THERE WAS A CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 1 27. ALSO, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SOME ERROR MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED ON THE PART OF CPC - TDS DUE TO CHANGE OF PROCESSING LOGIC. AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A), THE CPC - TDS VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 18 - 09 - 2017, HAD CLEARLY STATED THAT REPROCESSI NG DUE TO CHANGE IN THE PROCESSING LOGIC WAS AN EVENT THAT HAD OCCURRED POSTERIOR TO THE SENDING OF THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION TO THE ASSESSEE ON JULY 07, 2014. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID FACT S , THE CIT ( A ) CONCLUDED THAT THE DELAY INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF PASSING/SERVING OF THE EARLIER ORDER OF INTIMATION. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE CIT ( A ), THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE APPEAL MANUALLY ON 26 - 12 - 2016 , HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS REJECTED BY A SEPARATE ORDER DATED 13 - 06 - 2017 , SINCE THE APPEAL WAS FILED AFTER MARCH 01, 2016 , WHICH WAS THE DA T E FROM WHICH ALL APPEALS WERE MANDATED TO BE COMPULSORILY FILED IN ELECTRONIC FORM . O BSERVING, THAT THE TRANSITORY PERIOD FOR FILING OF AP PEALS IN ELECTRONIC FORM HAD THOUGH COMMENCED FROM MARCH 01, 2016, HOWEVER, AS THE SAME HAD RESULTED TO CERTAIN DIFFICULTIES TO THE ASSESS ES , THEREFORE, THE CBDT , VIDE ITS CIRCULAR NO. 20/2016 , DATED 26 - 05 - 2016 HAD EXTENDED THE TIME AVAILABLE FOR E - FILING OF APPEALS TILL 15 - 05 - 2016 , THE CIT(A) WAS THUS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY INVOLVED IN FILING OF THE APPAL WAS TO BE WORKED OUT FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS READY WITH ITS APPEAL . ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT ( A ) OBSERVED THA T THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INVOLVED A DELAY OF 848 DAYS , AS UNDER: - 24Q - QTR.3 FY 2013 - 14 (A) D ATE OF FILING OF STATEMENT : 27.06.2014 (B) D ATE OF INTIMATION AS PER CPC - TDS AND SENDING IT ELECTRONICALLY : 02 - 07 - 2014 ( C) DUE DATE FOR APPEAL FILING : 01.08.2014 (C) DATE OF FILING OF APPEAL : 26.12.2016 (MANUAL) (D) DATE OF FILING OF APPEAL : 28.12.2016 (E - FILING) (E) DELAY IN FILING APPEAL ( IN DAYS) : 848 4 . IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT (A) THAT THE AFORESAID PERIOD OF DELAY OF 848 DAYS WAS NOT AN INSIGNIFICANT PERIOD , AND IN FACT WAS AN INORDINATE DELAY THAT WAS INVOLVED IN FILING OF THE APPEAL P A G E | 5 ITA NOS. 1137 - 1140/MUM/2018 A.Y 2014 - 15 MICM NET SOLUTIONS P.LTD . VS. ACIT, CPC - TDS BY THE ASSESSEE . OBSERVING, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AS A MATTER OF RIGHT AND HAD TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF A REASONABLE CAUSE AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY INVOLVED IN FILING OF THE APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HOLDING A CONVICTION THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY PLAUSIBLE REASON WHICH HAD LEAD TO THE AFORESAID DEL AY IN THE FILING OF THE APPEAL, THUS DECLINE D TO CONDONE THE SAME IN EXERCIS E OF THE POWER S VESTED WITH HIM U/S. 249(3) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, THE CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGG RIEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT ( A ) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5 . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ( FOR SHORT, THE A . R) FOR THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE IMPUGNE D DELAY HAD OCCURRED FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO CHECK ITS E - MAIL ACCOUNT WHERE THE AFORESAID INTIMATION U/S 200A WAS DROPPED BY THE CPC - TDS. IN THE BACKDROP OF HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A . R THAT THE DELAY INVO LVED IN THE FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL BE CONDONE D AND THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT ( A ), WITH A DIRECTION TO RE ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE DELIVERY OF NOTICE S /ORDER S BY E - MAIL HAD STARTED IN AND AROUND THE YEAR 2014 , THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONVERSANT WITH THE SAME . IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THE LD. A.R IN ITS ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY/EXPLAIN THE DELAY INVOLVED IN FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL , SUBMITTED, THAT THE SAME WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE REASON THAT THE ASSSESSEE HAD FAILED TO CHECK ITS E - MAIL BOX AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID CLAI M , THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT , DATED 23 - 07 - 2019. ALSO , THE LD. A . R HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SENIOR BHOSALE ESTATE (HUF ) VS. ACIT IN [ CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6677 - 6690 OF 2010 , DT. 16 - 11 - 2019 ] AND THE ORDER OF A C O - ORDINATE B ENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIZ. , ITAT, DELHI BENCH, D IN THE CASE OF JAKSON LTD VS. ACIT, C.C - 25, NE W DELHI [ ITA NO. 6432/DEL/2014 , DATED . 27 - 09 - 2018 ] . 6 . PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT ( A ) . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D . R , THAT AS AN INORDINATE DELAY OF 84 8 DAYS WAS INVOLVED IN FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE , T HEREFORE, THE SAME MAY NOT BE CONDONE D . IT WAS AVERRED BY THE LD. D.R, THAT THE CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE INORDINATE DELAY INVOLVED IN FILING OF THE APPEAL HAD RIGHTLY DECLINED TO EXERCISE HIS POWERS U/S 249(3) AND THEREIN CONDONE THE DELAY THEREIN INVOLVED. APART P A G E | 6 ITA NOS. 1137 - 1140/MUM/2018 A.Y 2014 - 15 MICM NET SOLUTIONS P.LTD . VS. ACIT, CPC - TDS THEREF ROM , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D . R THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TRIED TO WRIGGLE OUT OF THE AFORESAID DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY SHIFTING THE BLAME ON THE DEPARTMENT , AND FALLACIOUSLY CLAIM ING THAT THE INTIMATION U/S. 200A ISSUED BY THE CPC - TDS WAS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D . R , THAT IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE FOUND ITSELF TO BE CORNERED ON BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE FACT THAT THE AFORESAID INTIMATION WAS D ULY SERVED/ISSUED BY THE CPC - TDS AT THE REGISTERED E - MAIL ADDRESS WHICH WAS PROV IDED BY IT, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY THEREAFTER ADMITTED OF HAVING RECEI VED THE AFORESAID INTIMATION. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D . R THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COME UP WITH THE CORRECT FACTS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THEREFORE, EVEN ON THE SAID COUNT THE INORDINATE DELAY INVOLVED IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) DID NOT MERIT TO BE CONDONED. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD T HE AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVES FOR B OTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD , AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THEM. AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES , THE APPEAL AGAINST THE INTIMATION ISSUED U/S. 200A BY THE CPC - TDS WAS TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE LATE ST BY 01 - 08 - 2014 . AS THE ASSESSEE HAD MANUALLY FILED ITS APPEAL ON 22 - 12 - 2016 , THEREFORE, O N AN OBJECTION CONVEYED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CIT(A) THAT IT W AS MANDATORY ON ITS PART TO FILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD THEREAFTER ELECTRONICALLY FILED THE SAME ON 29 - 12 - 2016. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) , WE FIND THAT THE LAT TER HAD OBSERVED THAT CONSIDERING THE INITIAL DIFFICULTIES WHI CH W E RE FACED BY THE ASSESSES IN THE TRANSITORY PERIOD, WHEREIN FILING OF APPEALS IN ELECTRONIC FORM WAS MADE COMPULSOR Y , THE CBDT HAD VIDE ITS CIRCULAR NO. 20/2016, DATED 26 - 05 - 2016 EXTENDED THE TIME AVAILABLE FOR E - FILING OF APPEALS TILL 15 - 05 - 2016 . ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT ( A ) HAD IN ALL FAIRNESS WORKED OUT THE PERIOD OF DELAY INVOLVED IN FILING OF THE IMPUGNED APPEAL UPTO THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPEAL WAS MANUALLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH, A DELAY OF 848 DAYS HAD EMERGED IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BY T HE ASSESSEE FOR THE QTR - 3 OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS THE CIT ( A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AN INORDINATE DELAY WAS INVOLVED IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, T HEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FORTHCOMING FROM THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE REASON LEADING TO THE SAID DELAY , HE DECLINE D TO CONDONE THE SAME. P A G E | 7 ITA NOS. 1137 - 1140/MUM/2018 A.Y 2014 - 15 MICM NET SOLUTIONS P.LTD . VS. ACIT, CPC - TDS 8 . WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE CONTENTION S ADVANCED BY THE LD. A . R THAT AS THE DELAY INVOLVED IN THE PRES ENT APPEAL HAD OCCURRED FOR BONA FI D E REASONS, THEREFORE, THE CIT ( A ) WAS IN ERROR IN DECLINING TO CONDON E THE SAME . ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT ( A ) , WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY HAD NOT CAME UP WITH THE CORRE CT STATE OF FACTS AND IN FACT HAD TRIED TO MISLEAD THE DEPARTMENT BY CLAIMING THAT NO INTIMATION U/S. 200A WAS SERVED UPON IT BY THE CPC - TDS. RATHER , ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID WRONG CLAIM THE ASSESSEE HAD EVEN SOUGHT A Q U ASH ING OF THE AFORE SAID INTIMATION U/S 200A THAT WAS DULY SERVED UPON IT BY THE CPC - TDS , ON THE GROUND, THAT THE SAME HAVING BEEN ISSUED BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD CONTEMPLATED IN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 200(1A) WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. WE FIND THAT IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CORNERED WITH THE FACT THAT THE INTIMATION U/S. 200A WAS DULY SERVED UPON IT BY THE CPC - TDS AT ITS REGISTERED E - MAIL ADDRESS, THAT IT WAS ONLY THEN THAT IT HAD FOR THE VERY FIRST TIM E SOUGHT CONDONATION OF THE DELAY INVOLVED IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT ( A ) . WE ARE OF A STRONG CONVICTION THAT NOT ONLY THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INVOLV ES A N INORDINATE DELAY OF 848 DAYS, BUT EVEN OTHERWISE, THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD NOT CAME UP WITH CLEAN HANDS AND CORRECT FACTS BEFORE T HE CIT(A) DOES NOT INSPIRE ANY CONFIDENCE AS REGARDS ITS B ONAFIDE S IN RESPECT OF THE REASONS LEADING TO THE DELAY INVOLVED IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ACCORDIN GLY, FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) , WHO IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW HAD RIGHTLY DECLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY INVOLVED IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BY THE ASSES S EE, WE UPHOLD HIS ORDER . 9 . THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE (ITA NO. 1137/MUM/2018 FOR THE A.Y 2014 - 15) IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 1138 TO 1140/MUM/2018 A.Y 2014 - 15 (QTR 1 TO 3) 10 . AS THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE AFORESAID APPEALS OF ASSESSEE REMAIN THE SAME AS WERE THERE BEFORE US IN ITS APPEAL FOR A.Y 2014 - 15 (QTR - 3) IN ITA NO. 1137/MUM/2018 , THEREFORE, OUR VIEW AND OBSERVATION S THEREIN RECORDED SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE AFORESAID APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) IN THE CAPTIONED APPEALS. P A G E | 8 ITA NOS. 1137 - 1140/MUM/2018 A.Y 2014 - 15 MICM NET SOLUTIONS P.LTD . VS. ACIT, CPC - TDS 11 . RESULTANTLY, ALL THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATION S . ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 8 . 12 .2019 S D / - S D / - ( G. MANJUNATHA ) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 18 .12 .2019 **PP, S PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI