Sri. Venkatesh Hemanth Kumar, Bangalore V. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal)- 13, Bangalore

ITA 1713/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3342 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: YADARSHI MISHRA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 234E; 200A; 73

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1713&1714/BANG/2019 SRI VENKATESH HEMANTH KUMAR, BANGALORE IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BBENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1713&1714/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENTYEAR: 2013-14 & 2014-15 SHRI VENKATESH HEMATH KUMAR, NO.972F-4, 10 TH A MAIN, 5 TH CROSS , RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560010 VS. ACIT, CPC TDS GHAZIABAD-201010. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO.AAGPH3023A APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJEEV C. NULVI, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI YADARSHI MISHRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 05.03.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.03.2020 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 11.7.2019 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-03, BANGALORE AND THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2013-14 & 2014-15. IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE WI THOUT ITANO.1713&1714/BANG/2019 SRI VENKATESH HEMANTH KUMAR, BANGALORE PAGE 2 OF 6 CONDONING THE DELAY. THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED T HE FEE LEVIED U/S 234E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) IN BOTH THE YEARS IN THE APPEA LS FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 2. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. T HE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE STATEMENT OF TDS BELATEDLY F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 & 2014-15 AND HENCE WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN U/S 200A OF THE ACT, A FEE OF RS.63,000/- AND RS.27,400/- RESPECTIVELY WAS LEVIED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 & 2014-15 U/S 234E OF THE A CT. THE STATEMENT OF TDS FOR BOTH THE YEARS WAS PROCESS ED ON 30.3.2014 AND 8.10.2014 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEALS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF FEE U/S 234E OF THE ACT BELATEDLY RESULTING IN DELAY OF 1756 DAYS AND 1593 DAYS. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSE E PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FATHERAJ SINGHV I VS. UNION OF INDIA 73 TAXMANN.COM 252 AND CONTENDED THA T FEES U/S 234E OF THE ACT CANNOT BE LEVIED PRIOR TO 1.6.2015. ITANO.1713&1714/BANG/2019 SRI VENKATESH HEMANTH KUMAR, BANGALORE PAGE 3 OF 6 3. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED THE DELAY IN FI LING APPEAL BEFORE HIM AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE APP EALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE APPEALS BEFORE US. 4. WE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED CERTA IN EXPLANATIONS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE DELAY IN FIL ING APPEALS BEFORE HIM. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS AVAILING SERVICES OF A CONSULTANT AND HE DID NOT PROPERLY ADVISE HIM IN THIS MATTER. SUBSEQUENT LY, WHEN THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT NAMED SHRI CHENNAPPA R. NULVI, HE CAME TO KNOW THA T FEE LEVIED U/S 234E OF THE ACT IS AGAINST THE DECIS ION RENDERED BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AND APPEAL S SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS W ERE FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) HAS OCCURR ED DUE TO IMPROPER ADVISE AND ACCORDINGLY PRAYED THAT THE DELAY MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED AND THE RELIEF MAY BE GRANTE D BY FOLLOWING DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HI GH COURT. ITANO.1713&1714/BANG/2019 SRI VENKATESH HEMANTH KUMAR, BANGALORE PAGE 4 OF 6 5. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. D.R. PLACED HIS RELIANC E ON THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). 6. WE NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONDONED THE DELAY BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION RENDERED BY THIRD M EMBER OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF JT. CIT VS. TRACTORS & FARMS EQUIPMENTS LTD. (2007) 104 ITD 149 AND ALSO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE C ASE OF CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL AND OTHERS VS. LIVING MEDI A INDIA LTD. 348 ITR 7. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A), THE REASONS ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY ARE N OT GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON. HOWEVER, WE NOTICE THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSISTED BY A CONSULTANT AND ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID CONSULTANT DID NOT ADVISE HI M PROPERLY. ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, HE GOT A PROPER ADVISE AND ACCORDINGLY FILED THE APPEALS BEFORE LD. CIT(A). I N OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DEL AY WITHOUT EXAMINING THE REASONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE . ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER REL ATING TO CONDONATION OF DELAY REQUIRES FRESH EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE NOTICE THAT THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO ADJUD ICATE THE ITANO.1713&1714/BANG/2019 SRI VENKATESH HEMANTH KUMAR, BANGALORE PAGE 5 OF 6 ISSUES ON MERITS. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE OR DER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE ALL THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR EXAMINATION AFRESH. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.03.2020 SD/- (BEENA PILLAI) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED 6 TH MARCH, 2020. /VG/ 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. ITANO.1713&1714/BANG/2019 SRI VENKATESH HEMANTH KUMAR, BANGALORE PAGE 6 OF 6 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR.P.S .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE.. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO .. 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 13. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER. .. 14. DICTATION NOTE ENCLOSED