M/s. Oriental Bank of Commerce, JAIPUR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), Jaipur

ITA 1486/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0778 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-03-2019
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV SOGANI
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 201(1); 201; 9(1); 9(1); 9(1); 13

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH JES'K LH 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NOS. 1471, 1475, 1476, 1480, 1483, 1485, 1486, 1487 & 1489/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 TO 2016-17 ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, UMRAO COMPLEX, M.I. ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. DCIT (TDS), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAACO 0191 M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJIV SOGANI (CA) & MS. SHIVANGI SAMDHANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : MS. ANURADHA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20/03/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/03/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A)-3, JAIPUR DATED 23/10/2018, 24/10/2018 AND 22/10/2018 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 TO 201 6-17 IN THE MATTER ORDER PASSED U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). ITA 1471, 1475, 1476, 1480, 1483, 1485, 1486, 1487 & 1489/JP/2018 ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE VS DCIT(TDS) 2 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ALL THE CASES ARE SAME WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A) AND DISMISSED THE APPEALS ON THE GROUND OF DELAY IN FIL ING WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 3. FROM THE RECORD, I FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT BANK ENGAGED IN BANKING ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSEE USED TO TAKE DEPOSITS FROM THE CUSTOMERS AND GIVE LOANS AND OTHER BANKING SERV ICES TO ITS CUSTOMERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON INTEREST PAYMENT EXCEEDING BASIC LIM IT. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CUS TOMERS TO WHOM THE INTEREST WAS PAID HAVE DULY FILLED FORM 15G/15H, THE REFORE THE BANK DID NOT DEDUCT TAX. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE AGGREGATE INTEREST IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR EXCEEDED T HE BASIC EXEMPTION LIMIT AS PER INCOME TAX ACT FOR FILING RETURN U/S 13 9(1) OF THE ACT AND STILL NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREA TED THE ASSESSEE IS IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH WAS DELAYED. ITA 1471, 1475, 1476, 1480, 1483, 1485, 1486, 1487 & 1489/JP/2018 ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE VS DCIT(TDS) 3 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE BA NKING COMPANY HAVING BRANCHES VISE SEPARATE TDS NO. AND THEREFORE , THE DEMAND NOTICE WAS RECEIVED AT BRANCH ADDRESS. BRANCH STAFF AND BRANCH MANAGER ARE GENERALLY NOT AWARE ABOUT INTRICACIES AN D PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT. EVEN, THEY HAVE N O IDEA REGARDING FILING OF APPEAL WITHIN A 30 DAYS OF RECEIVING OF OR DER, THEREFORE, DID NOT NOTE THE DATE OF RECEIVING OF ORDER. MOREOVER, THE CONCERNED OFFICER AT THE BRANCH WAS TRANSFERRED SHORTLY AFTER WHICH LED TO OBLIVION TOWARDS THE MATTER. FURTHERMORE, THE NOTICE WAS RECEIVED ON 11.10.2017 FOR DEPOSIT OF DEMAND OR OTHERWISE ATTACHMENT OF BANK AC COUNTS AND THEN THE MATTER WAS BROUGHT UNDER CONSIDERATION OF SENIOR OFFICER AT H.O. LEVEL. SENIOR OFFICER AT THE H.O. LEVEL REQUESTED T O THE CONCERNED INCOME TAX OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT ORDER AND CERTIFIE D COPY OF THE SAME WAS RECEIVED TO BRANCH ON 12.01.2018. FINALLY, BRANC H WAS ADVISED TO FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE RESPECTIVE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK DID NOT DERIVE ANY BENEFIT FROM DELAY IN FILING OF APPEALS; RATHER IT SUFFERED AS SERIOUS RISK OF HIGH HANDED DEMAND. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDICIARY I S RESPECTED ON ACCOUNT OF ITS POWER TO PROVIDE JUSTICE AND NOT FOR CONDONING INJUSTICE ITA 1471, 1475, 1476, 1480, 1483, 1485, 1486, 1487 & 1489/JP/2018 ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE VS DCIT(TDS) 4 ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS. THE JUDICIARY IS CAPABLE, AND IS EXPECTED TO DO SO, OF REMOVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONVINCE WITH THE REASONS FO R DELAY FILING OF APPEALS, ACCORDINGLY, HE DISMISSED THE APPEALS O N THE GROUND OF DELAY WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 7. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). I FOUND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS MST. KATIJI (1987) 167 ITR 471 A ND ALSO THE HONBLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUNIL CHANDRA VOHR A VS ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 365 (MUM) HAVE HELD THAT FOR SUBSTANTIAL INTE REST OF JUSTICE, TECHNICAL DELAY SHOULD BE IGNORED. APPLYING THE PRO POSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS TO THE FAC TS OF THE INSTANT CASE, I FOUND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, IN THE SUB STANTIAL INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DEC IDING THE MATTER AFRESH AS PER LAW IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT. ITA 1471, 1475, 1476, 1480, 1483, 1485, 1486, 1487 & 1489/JP/2018 ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE VS DCIT(TDS) 5 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE NINE APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE ARE ALLOWED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN TERMS INDICATED HE REINABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/03/2019. SD/- JES'K LH 'KEKZ ( RAMESH C SHARMA ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 26 TH MARCH, 2019. *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE DCIT (TDS), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1471, 1475, 1476, 1480, 1483, 1485, 1486, 1487 & 1489/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR