M/s N.N. Forex Travel Services Pvt. Ltd., Mohali V. DCIT (CPC), TDS, , Ghaziabad

ITA 1418/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4963 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GULSHAN RAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIIKSHIT AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1418 & 1419/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/S N.N. FOREX & TRAVEL VS. THE D.C.I.T., SERVICE PVT. LTD., CENTRALIZED PROCESSING BOOTH NO.88, PHASE 3B2, CELL, DS, GHAZIABAD MOHALI. JURISDICTION AT CHANDIGARH-TDS. PAN: AAECN1366P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PARIIKSHIT AGGARWAL, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GULSHAN RAJ, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 07.05.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.05.2018 ORDER PER BENCH : BOTH THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY THE SAME ASSESSE E ARE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT(A)-2, CH ANDIGARH DATED 21/08/2017, IN APPEALS FILED AGAINST ORDERS PASSED U/S 200A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961(HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS ACT), DATED 13.01.2015 & 21.03.2014 RESPECTIVE LY. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS WAS CO MMON, RELATING TO LEVY OF FEES U/S 234E OF THE ACT, FOR L ATE FILING OF TDS RETURNS, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON CONSOLIDATED ORDE R . 2. BRIEFLY STATED TDS RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE PROCESSED AND INTIMATION SENT TO THE ASSESSEE U/S SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, DATED 13/01/2015 AND 21/03/2014,LE VYING FEES FOR LATE FILING OF THE RETURNS, AS PER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, AMOUNTING TO RS.12,683 AND RS.10,300 RESPECTIV ELY. 2 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID INTIMATIONS, CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF THE FEES U/S 2 34E OF THE ACT, BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) FOUND THAT BO TH THE APPEALS WERE BARRED BY LIMITATION HAVING BEEN DELAY ED FOR FILING BY 195 & 493 DAYS RESPECTIVELY. LD.CIT(A) FO UND THAT WHILE BOTH THE APPEALS WERE FILED ON 06-08-2015, T HE APPEAL RELATING TO INTIMATION MADE U/S 200A OF THE ACT DT.13-01-2015 WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED ON 23-01-2015 AND THAT RELATING TO INTIMATION U/S 200 A DATED 21-03-2014 WAS COMMUNICATED ON 31-03-2014, THUS RESULTING IN DELAY OF 195 & 493 DAYS RESPECTIVELY. AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS WAS ALSO FILED ALONGWITH THE APPEALS WHICH WAS REJ ECTED BY THE CIT(A), THUS DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. T HE LD.CIT(A) THEREAFTER ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL ON MERI TS ALSO, UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF FEES U/S 234E , THUS DISMISSI NG THE APPEAL ON MERITS ALSO. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN A PPEAL BEFORE US CHALLENGING BOTH THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ALSO I N UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF FEES. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSI TION OF THE CASE, THE WORTHY CIT(A) IN APPEAL NO. 151/2/15-16 DATED 21.08.2017 HAS ERRED IN PASSING THAT ORDER IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION O F THE CASE, THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE IMPUGNED ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN HE HAS ERRED IN RAISING DEMAND OF RS. 10.200/- U/S 234E ON ACCOUNT OF 3 LATE FILING OF TDS STATEMENT BY PASSING INTIMATION U/ S 200A EVEN WHEN THE SAID DEMAND RAISED THROUGH INTIMATION U/S 200A IS BEYOND THE POWERS OF LD. AO AND EVEN ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, NO FEE SHOULD HAV E BEEN LEVIED ON THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSIT ION OF THE CASE, THE WORTHY CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN HE HAS ERRED IN CHARGING FEE OF RS. 10.200/- U/S 234E ON ACCOUNT OF LATE FILING OF TDS STATEMENT BY PASSING INTIMATION U/ S 200A EVEN WHEN THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH PREVENTED THE APPELLANT FROM FILING THE TDS STATEMENT IN TIME. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSIT ION OF THE CASE, THE WORTHY CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IN LIMINE BY HOLDING THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEYOND LIMITATION PERIOD AND THERE DID NOT EXIST REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY EVEN WHEN THERE EXISTED REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY WHICH DESERVED TO BE CONDONED. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSIT ION OF THE CASE, THE WORTHY CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO WHEREIN HE HAS ERRED IN LEVYING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY WITHOUT AFFORDI NG REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND HAS PASSED THE ORDER IN HASTE. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION , DELETION OR AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 5. TAKING UP FIRST THE GROUND RAISED AGAINST HOLDI NG THE APPEAL TIME BARRED RAISED IN GROUND NO.4 & 5, LD.CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE A LIMITED PRAYER BEFORE US TH AT THE ISSUE BE RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATI ON AFRESH SINCE NO OPPORTUNITY HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE REJECTING ITS APPLICATION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT FROM THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A), THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY , THE CIT(A) H AD REJECTED THE SAME AND HAD GIVEN NO FURTHER OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLEAD ITS CASE. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE 4 PLEADED THAT IT WOULD SERVE THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF THE MATTER IS READJUDICATED BY THE CIT(A) AFTER AFFORDI NG DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. LD.DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE SAME. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SINCE ADMITTEDLY THE CIT(A) HAD REJECTED THE ASSEESEES APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEALS WITHOUT AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORT UNITY OF HEARING, WE CONSIDER IT FIT AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO CONSIDER THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING TO THE ASSESSEE.WE THEREFORE RESTORE THE APPEAL DE-NOV O TO THE CIT(A) TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE GROUNDS RAISED ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 8. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE STANDS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 10 TH MAY, 2018 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5