State Bank Of India, Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward- 3(2), Bangalore

ITA 1641/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9167 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R PREMI
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 234E; 22

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1641/BANG/2019 STATE BANK OF INDIA, BANGALORE IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CBENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1641/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENTYEAR:2013-14 STATE BANK OF INDIA (FORMERLY STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE) COX TOWN BRANCH NO.8/1 GROVER ROAD FRAZER TOWN POST BENGALURU 560 005 PAN NO :BLRS04359F VS. ITO(TDS) WARD-3(2) BENGALURU APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : N O N E RESPONDENT BY : SMT. R.PREMI, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 22.03.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.03.2021 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2019 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-6, BENGALURU AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVE R, A PETITION HAS BEEN SENT BY E-MAIL BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING ADJ OURNMENT. HOWEVER, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX-PAR TE, WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1641/BANG/2019 STATE BANK OF INDIA, BANGALORE PAGE 2 OF 4 3. WE HEARD LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE I SSUE CONTESTED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO FEE LEVIED U/S 234E OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. WE NOTICE THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 161 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT ADMITTING THE SAME OBS ERVING THAT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY IS NOT SUFFICIENT. 4. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE DELAY HAS OCCURRED IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) DUE TO ACUTE SHORTAGE OF MANPOWER AND LACK OF GUIDANCE/EXPERTISE. IT WAS AL SO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC SECTOR BANK AND HENCE , THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO COMMIT DEFAULT IN COMPLYING WITH ANY O F THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. AS OBSERVED EARLIER, THE ABOVE SAID REA SONS WERE NOT CONVINCING TO LD CIT(A). 5. WE HEARD LD. D.R. ON THIS PRELIMINARY ISSUE, WHO SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). SHE FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, BEING A PUBLIC SECTOR BANK, IS SU PPORTED BY PROFESSIONALS AND HENCE THE REASON CITED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT SU FFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY. 6. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FACING ACUTE SHORT AGE OF MANPOWER AND GUIDANCE/EXPERTISE WAS ALSO LACKING AN D HENCE, THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. WE ALSO NO TICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDER ED BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FATEHRAJ SINGHV I & ORS. VS. UOI 289 CTR 602, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE LEVY OF FEE U/S 234E OF ITA NO.1641/BANG/2019 STATE BANK OF INDIA, BANGALORE PAGE 3 OF 4 THE ACT WAS NOT CORRECT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2015-1 6 AND EARLIER YEARS. THE PRESENT CASE RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND HENCE, THE ABOVE SAID DECISION SHOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLL ECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI&ORS. 167 ITR 471 HAS EX PRESSED THE VIEW THAT EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE EMPLOYED BY LEGISLATURE IS ADEQUATELY ELASTIC TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO APPLY TH E LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVES THE ENDS OF JUSTI CE, FOR THAT IS THE LIFE PURPOSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF INSTITUTION O F COURTS. HENCE THE REASONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSIDE RED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A REASONABLE PERSON. THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IS ONE OF THE BRANCHES OF M/ STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN MERGED WITH M/S STATE BANK OF INDIA. IT IS STATED T HAT THERE WAS SHORTAGE OF STAFF AND DOMAIN EXPERTISE IN TAXATION. ON EXAMINATION OF THE REASONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN A LIBER AL MANNER, IN OUR VIEW, THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DEL AY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SHALL CONSTITUTE SUFFICIE NT CAUSE. ON MERITS, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE GETS SUPPORT FR OM THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON THE IS SUES URGED ON MERITS. HENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUST ICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONDONED THE D ELAY. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 161 DAYS IN FI LING APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). SINCE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY HAS NOT DISPOSED THE APPEAL ON MERITS, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE S URGED ON MERITS TO HIS FILE FOR ADJUDICATING IT AFRESH. ITA NO.1641/BANG/2019 STATE BANK OF INDIA, BANGALORE PAGE 4 OF 4 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND MAR, 2021 SD/- (BEENA PILLAI) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED 22 ND MAR,2021. VG/SPS COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.