M/s. D.S.Padam Jewellers & Bankers, Mysore V. Deputy Commissione of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

ITA 1308/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1085 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMAN LUKNUR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay; TDS

Judgement Text

ITA.1308/BANG/2018 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'B', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.1308/BANG/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) D. S PADAM JEWELLERS & BANKERS, PROP. D S PADAMCHAND, NO.27, ASHOKA ROAD, MYSURU 570001 .. APPELLANT PAN : BLRD09709A V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - TDS, CPC, BENGALURU .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SMT. SUMAN LUKNUR, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI. R. N. SIDDAPPAJI, ADDL.CIT HEARD ON : 13.03.2019 PRONOUNCED ON : 15.03.2019 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), MYSURU, DT.30.11.2017, FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2013- 14, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : ITA.1308/BANG/2018 PAGE - 2 02. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE C IT (A), BY WHICH THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE STA TUTORY PERIOD, WAS REFUSED TO BE CONDONED. AS PER THE CIT (A) THE AS SESSEE HAD ONLY GIVEN REASONS FOR DELAY IN FURNISHING THE TDS RETUR N. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARA 3 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER WHICH IS TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT : 3. THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED ON 09/01/2017 AGAINST A IDS INTIMATION ISSUED VIDE COMMUNICATION REFERENCE NO. TDS/1213/260] 100012954575 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT U/S,200A OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, DT.23/11/2014, DETERMINING TD S LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANT AT RS.1,01,460/-, CONSIS TING OF LATE FILING FEE LEVIED U/S.234E OF THE ACT, IN THE TAN: BLRD09709A ASSIGNED TO THE APPELLANT. IN THE APPEAL MEMO FILED IN FORM NO.35, THE APPELLANT HAD CLEARLY ACKNOWLEDGED THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE AFORESAID INTIMATION AS 24/11/2014 BUT, FILED THIS APPEAL BELATEDLY ON 09/01/2017. ON AN EXAMINATION OF THE APPELLATE RECORDS, IT IS FOUND THAT NO REASON WAS C ITED FOR THE INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL TO CONSID ER WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FROM FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE DUE ITA.1308/BANG/2018 PAGE - 3 DATE. ON AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AFFORDED TO THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT FURNISHED A WRITTEN SUBMIS SION, DT,20/11/2017, WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON 27/11/2017. ON A CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, IT I S FOUND THAT AT PARAGRAPH 5.4 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, TH E APPELLANT ONLY MADE OUT THE REASON FOR THE DELAY IN FURNISHING THE TDS STATEMENT BUT DID NOT FURNISH AN Y REASON FOR THE DELAY IN PREFERRING THE TDS STATEMENT BUT D ID NOT FURNISH ANY REASON FOR THE DELAY IN PREFERRING THIS APPEAL, FOR CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLANT WAS PREVEN TED BY ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FROM FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE DUE DATE. THEREFORE, ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AVAILA BLE ON RECORD, AS PER LAW, THE AFORESAID DELAY IN FILING T HE APPEAL IS NOT CONDONED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS NOT ADM ITTED. 03. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE REASON FOR NOT PR EFERRING THE APPEAL WITHIN TIME READ, AS UNDER ; 2. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE INTIMAT ION U/S.200A OF THE ACT WAS SENT THROUGH EMAIL AND THE APPELLANT WAS NOT WELL VERSED WITH THE OPERATION OF ONLINE / EMAIL FACILITIES. BECAUSE OF THIS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY T HE INTIMATION SENT THROUGH EMAIL WAS LEFT UNNOTICED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE DEMAND STARTING APPEARING IN TH E E-FILING PORTAL, AND THE NOTICE FOR OUTSTANDING DEMAND WAS R ECEIVED, THE APPELLANT CONSULTED THEIR AUDITORS, WHO ADVISED THE M TO FILE APPEAL AGAINST THE INTIMATION PASSED U/S.234E OF TH E ACT. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A) WAS NEITHER DELIBERATE NOR INTENTIONAL. TH E APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE FR OM FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME BEFORE CIT (A) MYSORE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPLIANCE OF TDS IS A NE WLY INTRODUCED CHAPTER AND THE MOST OF ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE PRES ENT ASSESSEE INVARIABLY ARE NOT AWARE ABOUT THE TIMELY REPORTIN G / DEDUCTION OF TDS AND THEREFORE THERE WAS A DELAY IN NOT ONLY FUR NISHING THE TDS ITA.1308/BANG/2018 PAGE - 4 STATEMENT BUT ALSO THEREAFTER PURSUING THE APPEAL B EFORE THE CIT (A). 04. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR OBJECTED TO COND ONATION OF DELAY AND HAD ALSO OBJECTED FOR SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT (A). 05. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. UNDOUBTEDLY, FILING OF THE TDS RETURN AND THE INTIM ATION U/S.200A IS BEING DONE ELECTRONICALLY AND THE NEW SYSTEM WAS PUT INTO PLACE VERY RECENTLY. AT TIMES, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PO SSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO COPE UP WITH THE TECHNOLOGY AND THEREFO RE THERE IS BOUND TO BE SOME DELAY IN RECEIVING THE ORDER AND S CALING UP, IF AGGRIEVED BEFORE HIGHER FORUM, IN RESPONSE TO THE I NTIMATION GIVEN BY THE DEPARTMENT. ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVE SAID RE ASON , THERE WAS DELAY IN FILLING THE STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ONLY A SMALL S UM OF RS.1,01,460/- WAS SOUGHT TO BE CHARGED TOWARDS LATE FILING FEES U /S.234E OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT WHEN THE REVENUE I S INTIMATING U/S.200A OF THE ACT, THEN THE REVENUE SHOULD ALSO B E SENDING THE SMS ALERT ALONG WITH INTIMATION . IN THE PRESENT C ASE, THOUGH ELABORATE REASON WERE NOT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A), BUT NONETHELE SS THE REASONS ARE NOW PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUN AL. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND REASONS NOW S UBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE , WE ALLOW THE CONDONATION OF DELAY SUBJEC T TO PAYMENT OF RS.5,000/- COST AS AGREED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASS ESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE ITAT BAR ASSOCIATION ITA.1308/BANG/2018 PAGE - 5 BANGALORE ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2019. ON PAYMENT OF COST OF RS.5,000/- AS DIRECTED HEREIN ABOVE , WE DIRECT THE CIT (A) TO HEAR AND DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 06. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019. SD/- SD/- (A. K. GARODIA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BENGALURU DATED : 15.03.2019 MCN* COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.