Kasturi Prabodh Pai, Mangalore V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, (TDS), Ghaziabad

ITA 1432/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3428 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A RAMESH KUMAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 234E; 200A; 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES A BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 1432 TO 1434/BANG/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 201 3 - 14 TO 2015 - 16 ) SHRI KASTURI PRABODH PAI, 6 - 4 - 93, ANANTH, 6THCROSS GANDHI NAGAR, MA NGALORE - 560 .APPELLANT PAN AIZPP0563C VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD. RESPONDENT. ASSESSEE BY: NONE. REVENUE BY: SHRI A. RAMESH KUMAR, JCIT (D.R) DATE OF HEARING : 03.03 .20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 .03 .20 20 O R D E R PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) - 10, BANGALORE. SINCE THE ISSUES ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THEY ARE CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND CO NSOLIDAT ED ORDER IS PASSED. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE ITA 2 ITA NOS.1432 TO 1434/BANG/2019 NO.1432/BA NG/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 AND THE FACTS NARRATED THEREIN. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE . THE RPAD ACK NOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE WAS PLACED IN THE FILE. ON PERUSAL OF DETAILS, WE FIND THERE IS A DELAY OF 291 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PETITION EXPLAINING THE DELAY. ON EXAMIN ATION OF THE FACTS AND EXPLA NAT IONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FOUND THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILLING, FOR WHICH THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO SERIOUS OBJECTION. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL AND HEARD. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS R AISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 3 ITA NOS.1432 TO 1434/BANG/2019 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED QUARTERLY TDS RETURN FOR T HE QUARTER4 OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012 - 13ON24.09.2013. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE RET URN WAS PROCESSED AND ORDER UNDER SECTI ON 200A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED WITH LATE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT FOR DELAY IN FILING THE QUARTERLY T DS STATEMENT OF RS.20, 400. AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE CIT(APPEALS) . WHEREAS THE CIT ( APPEALS), CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A DELAY IN FILING TH E APPEAL, AS THE ORDER U/SEC 200A OF THE ACT LEVYING LATE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 26.10.2013 . BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS F ILED AN APPEAL ON 16.08.2016 .HENCE , THERE IS A DELAY OF MORE THAN TWO AND HALF YEARS . T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED EXPLANATIONS ON DELAY REF ERRED AT PARA 4.1 OF ORDER , BUT THE CIT ( APPEALS) HAS CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF DELAY , AND OVERLOOKED THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY . AGGRIEVED BY 4 ITA NOS.1432 TO 1434/BANG/2019 THE ORDER OF CIT(A),THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL. SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE L DDR MADE SUBMISSIONS AND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF CIT ( APPEALS). 5. WE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FOUND THAT THE CIT ( APPEALS) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY AS NO S UFFICIENT CAUSE WAS EXPLAINED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED T HE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/SEC200A OF THE ACT FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 ON 16.08.2016.BUT T HE CIT ( APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 994 DAYS IN FILLING THE APPEAL, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE E XPLAINED THE REA SONS FOR DELAY, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION S ON THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE. WE FOUND THE ASSESSEE HAS CO - OPERATED IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND FILED THE EXPLANATION S REFERRED AT PARA 4.1 OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ORDER . WE CONSIDERING THE FAC TS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT GAIN ANY BENEFIT IN DELAYING THE PROCESS OF FILLING THE APPEAL, FURTHER ON PERUSAL OF THE EXPLANATION S SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEL LATE PROCEEDINGS, WE NOTICED EXISTENCE OF REA SONABLE CAUSE WHICH CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED. HENCE, WE CONSIDERING THE P RINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, SUPPORT OUR VIEW RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. M.S. KATIJI & OTHERS (167 ITR 471) (SC) AND THE OBSERVATIONS ARE READ AS UNDER : 5 ITA NOS.1432 TO 1434/BANG/2019 THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONFERRED THE POWER TO CONDONE DELAY BY ENACTING S. 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT OF 1963 IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO PARTIES BY DISPOSING OF MATTERS ON 'MERITS'. THE EXPRESSION 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE' EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE IS ADEQUATELY ELASTIC TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO APPLY THE LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVES THE ENDS OF JUSTICE THAT BEING THE LIFE - PURPOSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE INSTITUTION OF COURTS. THE DOCTRINE OF EQUALITY BEFORE LAW DEMANDS THAT ALL LITIGANTS, INCLUDING THE STATE AS A LITIGANT, ARE ACCORDED THE SAME TREATMENT AND THE LAW IS ADMINISTERED IN AN EVEN - HANDED MANNER. THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR ACCORDING A STEP - MOTHERLY TREATMENT WHEN THE 'STATE ' IS THE APPLICANT PRAYING FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN FACT, EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT ON ACCOUNT OF AN IMPERSONAL MACHINERY (NO ONE IN CHARGE OF THE MATTER IS DIRECTLY HIT OR HURT BY THE JUDGMENT SOUGHT TO BE SUBJECTED TO APPEAL) AND THE INHERENT BUREAUCRATI C METHODOLOGY IMBUED WITH THE NOTE - MAKING, FILE - PUSHING, AND PASSING - ON - THE - BUCK ETHOS, DELAY ON ITS PART IS LESS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THOUGH MORE DIFFICULT TO APPROVE. IN ANY EVENT, THE STATE WHICH REPRESENTS THE COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT DESERVE A LITIGANT NON GRATA STATUS. THE COURTS, THEREFORE, HAVE TO BE INFORMED OF THE SPIRIT AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE PROVISION IN THE COURSE OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE EXPRESSION 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE'. SO ALSO THE SAME APPROACH HAS TO BE EVIDENCED IN IT S APPLICATION TO MATTERS AT HAND WITH THE END IN VIEW TO DO EVEN - HANDED JUSTICE ON MERITS IN PREFERENCE TO THE APPROACH WHICH SCUTTLES A DECISION ON MERITS. ACCORDINGLY, WE FALLOW THE RATIO OF THE DECISION, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE INT EREST O F SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, CONDONE THE DELAY AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE DISPUTED ISSUES TO THE FILE OF CIT(APPEALS) TO ADMIT AND ADJUDICATE ON MERITS AFRESH . FURTHER PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING TO THE ASSESSEE AN D THE ASSESSEE SHALL CO - OPERATE IN SUBMITTING THE INFORMATION FOR EARLY DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6 ITA NOS.1432 TO 1434/BANG/2019 6. SIMILARLY, IN ITA NOS.1433 & 1434/BA NG/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15 AND 2 015 - 16, THE ISSUES ARE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL AND ALSO THERE IS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WE HAVE TA KEN A DECISION IN THE ASSESSEE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1432/BANG/2019 CONDONING THE DELAY AND ADMITTING THE APPEAL. FURTHER RELYING ON THE D ECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. M S T KATIJI & OTHERS (SUPRA) , THE DELAY IN FILLING THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) IS CONDONED AND APPEAL IS RESTORE TO THE FIL E OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ON MERITS AND THE SAME DECISION SHALL EQUALLY APPLY TO THESE APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE DISPUTED ISSUES TO THE FILE OF CIT(APPEALS) TO ADMIT AND ADJUDICATE AFRESH ON MERITS AND ALLO W THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE'S APPEALS FOR THE A.YS 2013 - 14, 2014 - 15 AND 2015 - 16 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON TH E CAPTION PAGE. S D / - S D / - ( A.K. GARODIA ) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 0 6 .03.2 0 20 . *REDDY GP 7 ITA NOS.1432 TO 1434/BANG/2019 COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT (A) 4. PR. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE