Shree Samarth Tech Engineering Pvt.Ltd, Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, CPC-TDS,- , Ghaziabad

ITA 1501/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1576 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Condonation of delay; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 234E; 201; 13; 32; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY , JM SL. NO. ITA NO(S). NAME OF THE APPLICANT NAME OF RESPONDENT ASST. YEAR QUA RTER FORM 1 - 7 14 5 0 /PUN/2019 TO 1456/PUN/2019 ALPHA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. GENERAL BLOCK NO.100, MIDC, BHOSARI, PUNE - 411026 PAN:AABCA6227D ACIT, CPC - TDS, GHAZIABAD. 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2015 - 16 2015 - 16 Q2 Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q1 Q3 24Q 24Q 24Q 24Q 26Q 24Q 26Q 8 - 30 1505/PUN/2019 TO 15 27 /PUN/2019 OERLIKON BALZERS COATING INDIA PVT. LTD. EL - 22, J BLOCK, MIDC, BHOSARI, PUNE - 411026 PAN:AAACI3916N ACIT, CPC - TDS, GHAZIABAD. 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 20 14 - 15 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2015 - 16 2015 - 16 2015 - 16 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q2 Q3 Q3 Q4 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q2 Q3 Q3 Q2 Q2 Q2 24Q 24Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 27Q 27EQ 27Q 27EQ 27Q 27EQ 26Q 26Q 26Q 27Q 27EQ 27Q 27EQ 27Q 27EQ 26Q 27Q 27EQ 31 1588/PUN/2019 OERLIKON BALZERS COATING INDIA PVT. LTD. EL - 22, J BLOCK, MIDC, BHOSARI, PUNE - 411026 PAN:AAACI3916N ACIT, CPC - TDS, GHAZIABAD. 2013 - 14 Q2 24Q 2 GROUP OF (78 CASES ) U/S.234E 32 - 4 3 1492/PUN/2019 TO 1503/PUN/2019 SHREE SAMARTH TECH PROCESS ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. GAT NO.53, CHIMBLI, TAL. KHED, DIST. PUNE - 412105 PAN:AAPCS4543Q 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2015 - 16 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 24Q 24Q 24Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 24Q 24Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 27Q 4 4 - 5 8 1477/PUN/2019 TO 1491/PUN/2019 SUSANTA KUMAR SARKAR GAYATRI ERECTORS, TELCO MATERIAL GATE, PIMPRI, PUNE - 411018 PAN: AKVPS2686K ACIT, C PC - TDS, GHAZIABAD. 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2015 - 16 2015 - 16 2015 - 16 2015 - 16 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 24Q 24Q 24Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 24Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 5 9 - 7 3 1457/ PUN/2019 TO 1471/PUN/2019 TRISHUL SERVICE STATION PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.T 163, MIDC, BHOSARI, PUNE 411026 PAN: AACCT0219R ACIT, CPC - TDS, GHAZIABAD. 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2015 - 16 2015 - 16 201 5 - 16 2015 - 16 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 24Q 24Q 24Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 24Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 24Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 7 4 - 7 8 1472/PUN/2019 TO 1476/PUN/2019 VISTAR ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.T 163, MIDC, BHOSARI, PUNE PAN: AAACV9821B ACIT, CPC - TDS, G HAZIABAD. 2013 - 14 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2014 - 15 2015 - 16 Q4 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q4 24Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 24Q A SSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI REVENUE BY : SHRI S.P. WALIMBE / DATE OF HEARING : 13 .12 .2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 .12 .2019 3 GROUP OF (78 CASES ) U/S.234E / ORDER PER BENCH: TH ESE BUNCH OF 78 APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES EMANATES FROM THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) S FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS CAPTIONED HEREINABOVE AND AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECOR D. 2. THESE CASES WERE HEARD TOGETHER. SINCE FACTS COMMON AND ISSUES ARE SIMILAR, THESE CASES ARE BEING DISPOSED OF VIDE THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE NOTICE THAT SOME OF THE APPEALS ARE TIME BARRED BY 38 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D AN AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH CONDONATION OF DELAY PETITION. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONDONATION PETITION AS WELL AS THE AFFIDAVIT AND HAVE FOUND THAT REASONS SPECIFIED THEREIN ARE JUSTIFIED AND THAT THE DELAY CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE DELIBERATE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER THROUGH INTENTION NOR THROUGH ACTION. THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL S LATE WERE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THE LD. DR STATED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION, IF THE DELAY IS CONDONED. IN VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE C ONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED TO HEAR THE APPEAL S ON MERITS. 4. IN THESE SET OF APPEALS INTIMATION HAD BEEN ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.200A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WHEREIN FEES PAYABLE U/S.234E OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CHARGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4 GROUP OF (78 CASES ) U/S.234E 5. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT IN RESPECT OF ALL THESE CASES, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAD INSERTED CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A(1) OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY W.E.F. 01.06.2015 AND THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE S BEFOR E US I S THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE SAID AMENDMENT WAS INTRODUCED W.E.F 01.06.2015 AND THERE WAS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE SAID AMENDMENT WAS CLARIFICATORY OR RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, THEN NO SUCH LATE FEES COULD BE CHARGED U/S.234E OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF TDS STATEMENTS WHICH WERE FILED PRIOR TO 01.06.2015. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN ALL THESE CASES TDS STATEMENTS WERE FILED PRIOR TO 01.06.2015 AND THEREFORE, THE REVENUE AUTHORIT IES COULD NOT HAVE LEVIED LATE FEES U/S.234E OF THE ACT. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IN THESE SET OF APPEALS, THE RESPECTIVE LD. CIT(APPEAL) S HAD DISMISSED THE SE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THEM ON THE GROUND OF SUBSTANTIAL LATE FILING OF THE APPEALS AND WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASES. THAT FURTHER THESE APPEALS WERE TIME BARRED AND THE ASS ESSEES COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE REASONABLENESS FOR SUCH SUBSTANTIAL DELA Y IN FILING OF THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A PPEAL) S. THEREFORE, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE RESPECTIVE FILE S OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) S FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE HAVE ALSO GIVEN CONSIDERABLE THOUGHT TO THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED IN ALL THESE CASES. IT IS OBSERVED ON PERUSAL OF SECTION 200 SUB SECTION (3) R.W.S. 20 6 C SUB - SECTION (3) PROVISO THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TDS, HE HAS TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT AND AFTER DOING THAT HE HAS T O FURNISH THE TDS STATEMENT BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. IF THERE IS LATE FILING OF THOSE TDS 5 GROUP OF (78 CASES ) U/S.234E STATE MENTS THEN THE REVENUE AUTHORIT IES MAY CHARGE LATE FILING FEES U/S.234E OF THE ACT. THAT HOWEV ER, THIS POWER THE LEGISLATURE W A S PROVIDED TO THE AUTHORITIES BY INSERTING CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A(1) OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01.06.2015. THERE ARE PLETHORA OF CASES WHICH DECIDED THIS ISSUE THAT IF TDS STATEMENTS WERE FILED PRIOR TO 01.06.2015 THEN THERE CANNOT BE ANY LEV Y OF LATE FEES U /S.2 34E OF THE ACT . THAT HOWEVER, TDS STATEMENT S FILED AFTER 01.06.2015 WOULD ATTRACT THE LATE FILING FEES AS PER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT IN THESE INSTANT CASES BEFORE US , IN SOME OF THE CASES, TDS STATEMENTS WERE FILED PRIOR TO 01.06.2015 W HILE IN SOME OTHER CASES, THEY WERE FILED AFTER 01.06.2015. THIS IS THE POSITION ON MERITS. THAT HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) S IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS HAS NOT DEALT WITH THE MERITS OF THESE CASES AND HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN FILING OF THESE APPEAL S AND ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT THE REASONABLENESS ATTRIBUTED TO THAT DELAY C OULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE S THE REIN . 8. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ANIL KUMAR NEHRU VS. ACIT (2018) 103 CCH 0231 ISC C HAS HELD THAT EVEN IF THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN FILING OF APPEALS IT CAN BE CONDONED ON THE GROUND THAT IT INVOLVES A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH GOES IN TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. IN THESE SET OF APPEALS BEFORE US, IT PERTAINS TO A LEGAL QUESTION WHETHER LATE FEE S WOULD BE LEVIABLE ON THE ASSESSEE OR NOT DEPENDING UPON T HE MERITS INVOLVED IN EACH CASE . TAKING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INTO CONSIDERATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) S IN ALL THESE CASE S AND RESTORE THEM BACK TO THEIR RESPECTIVE FILES TO EXAMINE THE MATTER ON MERITS INVOLVING LEGAL GROUND OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT AND ALSO FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE APEX COURT (SUPRA.) , T HE LD. 6 GROUP OF (78 CASES ) U/S.234E CIT(APPEAL) S W OULD ADJUDICATE TH ESE CASES IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THESE SET OF APPEALS OF THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 13 TH DAY OF DEC EMBER , 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - R.S.SYAL PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 13 TH DECE MBER , 2019 . SB / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE C ONCERNED CIT(APPEALS) 4. THE C ONCERNED CIT. 5 . , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6 . / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE . 7 GROUP OF (78 CASES ) U/S.234E DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 1 3 . 12 .2019 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 1 3 .12 .201 9 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER