MANA RAM BISHNOI, JODHPUR V. ACIT,CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR, JODHPUR

ITA 134/JODH/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9247 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 234E

Judgement Text

IN THE I NCOME TAX APPE LLATE TRIBU NAL JOD HPU R BE NCH, J OD HPU R BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No s. 128 to 134/Jodh/2021 (ASSESSMENT YEARS- 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Mana Ram Bishnoi 41-B, 9 t h E Road, Sardapura Vs ACIT, Circle-03, Jodhpur (Appellant ) ( Respondent) PAN NO. AGPPB 6702 P Asse ssee ByShri Rajendra Jain (Adv.) Revenue By Shri Ven katesh V. Sr. DR. (JCIT) Date of hearing 01/11/2022 Date of Pro nounce ment 01/11/2022 O R D E R PE R: B.R. BASKARAN, AM All these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 11/10/2021 and they related to the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. All these appeals pertained to fees charge u/s 234E of the Act in respect of Statement of TDS filed by the assessee for various quarters relating to Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2 ITA Nos. 128 to 134/Jodh/2021 Mana Ram Bishnoi vs. ACIT, Circle-03, Jodhpur 2. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee on the reasoning that there was delay in filing appeals before him and the delay was not properly explained. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not aware of the demand raised against him u/s 234E of the Act. The assessee came to know of aforesaid demand only in Feb, 2019. Accordingly, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) immediately thereafter on 14.03.2019. The ld. CIT(A), however, noticed that the demands were raised in Dec, 2013 and the assessee has not furnished proper reasons for the delay in filing appeals in March, 2019. Accordingly he dismissed the appeals in limine without condoning the delay. The ld. AR submitted that the fact remains that the assessee came to know of the demand only in Feb, 2019. Immediately thereafter the assessee has filed appeals before ld. CIT(A) within 30 days. He submitted that the assessee would not gain anything in filing the appeals belatedly. Accordingly, he submitted that, in the interest of natural justice, the delay should have been condoned by ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. We notice that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed all these appeals without condoning the delay on the reasoning that the assessee has not properly explained inordinate 3 ITA Nos. 128 to 134/Jodh/2021 Mana Ram Bishnoi vs. ACIT, Circle-03, Jodhpur delay in filing the appeals before him. However, it is the submission of the assessee that he came to know of demand raised u/s 234E of the Act only in Feb, 2019. It is the submission of the ld. AR, the delay in filing appeals before ld. CIT(A) was not intentional. We notice that the submission of the assessee that he has come to know of the demand only in Feb, 2019 has not been disproved by the revenue. It is also not clear whether the notice of demand was sent by mail or by post. The possibility of missing the mail is more in the initial days of introduction of electronic communication by the revenue. 5. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that, in the interest of natural justice, the ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeals before him. In this regard, we derive in support of the decision under by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MST Katiji vs. Collector of land Acquisition (167 ITR 471)(SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held the substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. As submitted by the Ld A.R, if the demand had been enforced by the tax authorities, the assessee would not have kept idle earlier. Hence there is merit in the submission of the assessee that he came to know of the demand only in February, 2019. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we condone the delay in 4 ITA Nos. 128 to 134/Jodh/2021 Mana Ram Bishnoi vs. ACIT, Circle-03, Jodhpur filing the appeals before ld. CIT(A). The orders passed by Ld CIT(A) are accordingly set aside. 6. Since the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeals on merits, we restore all these issues to his file for adjudicating them on, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to be assessee. 7. In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 1 s t November, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (B . R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL ME MBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 01/11/2022 *Ganesh Kr Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR 6. Guard File Assistant Registrar Jodhpur Bench