M/s. Infycons Creative Software Private Limited, Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad

ITA 1719/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1553 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K N DHANDA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAGNA
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Condonation of delay; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 234E; 200A; 201; 13

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 324 - 328 (B)/201 9 AND ITA NOS.1 719 - 1721 (B)/2019 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : B , BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACC OUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT.BEENA PILLAI, JUDICAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 324 TO 328 (BANG)/201 9 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 20 13 - 14 TO 2015 - 16) ) AND ITA NOS.1719 TO 1721 (B)/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 201 3 - 14 TO 2014 - 15 ) M/S INFYCONS CREATIVE SOFTWARE PVT.LTD. NO.7, I FLOOR, 80 FT. ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE PAN NO. AABCD0790D APPELLANT VS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX OFFICER, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : MISS . PRAGNA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI K.N.DHANDAPANI, ADDL.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 0 9 - 1 2 - 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 - 12 - 2019 O R D E R PER BENCH : PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 26/12/18 AND 25/06/19 PASSED BY LD. CIT (A) - 3 BANGALORE. ITA NOS. 324 - 328 (B)/201 9 AND ITA NOS.1 719 - 1721 (B)/2019 2 2. LD. AR SUB MITTED THAT THESE APPEALS ARISE OUT OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200 A OF THE A CT , PASSED BY LD. AO LEVYING INTE REST UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE A CT. 2.1 SHE SUBMITTED THAT APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT (A) FOR Q3 ANDQ4 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2013 - 14, 2014 - 15 AND Q4 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16 , WAS FI LED WITH DELAY OF 575,868,152,1001 A ND 1003 DAYS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DELAY IN FILING APPEAL S WAS DUE TO CERTAIN CHANGE IN ORGANI Z ATION, AND CONSULTANT WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF TDS DID NOT TRACK INTIMATIONS REGULARLY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT , FOR REASONS BEYON D CONTROL THERE WAS DELAY TO FILE APPEAL S BY ASSESSEE AGAINST INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE IT ACT, 1961 DATED 1 - 10 - 2016, 13 - 05 - 2014, 31 - 05 - 2014, 30 - 07 - 2015 . FURTHER SHE SUBMITTED THAT AGAINST INTIMATION DATED 11 - 10 - 2014 , THOUGH APPEAL WAS FILED WI TH DELAY OF 868 DAYS, LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL, SINCE APPEAL FILED WAS FOUND TO BE DEFECTIVE. 2.2 SHE FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT (A) , FOR Q1, Q2 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 AND Q3 PERTAINI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15, FILE D WITH A DELAY OF 1955 DAYS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T INTIMATIONS UNDER SECTION 200A WERE NOT REFLECTING IN TRACES WEBSITE AND ASSESSEE WAS UNAWARE REGARDING THESE INTIMATIONS. IT WAS ONLY WHEN ASSESSEE RECEIVED A CONSOLIDATED OUTSTANDING DEMAND FOR PAYMENT F ROM THE DEPARTMENT THAT ASSESSEE PERSONALLY WENT TO THE CONCERNED TD S JURISDICTION TO COLLECT THE SE INTIMATIONS DATED 26 - 10 - 2013. ITA NOS. 324 - 328 (B)/201 9 AND ITA NOS.1 719 - 1721 (B)/2019 3 2.3 IT HAS THUS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT FOR AFORESTATED BONA - FIDE REASONS, ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT (A) WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. 3. SHE SUBMITTED THAT LD.CIT(A) DID NOT ADMIT APPEAL S FILED AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT , PASSED BY LD.AO . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS DELAY AS THERE EXISTED SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND DELAY WAS NOT WILLFUL OR IN TENTIONAL. AS HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY LD.AR , A LIBERAL APPROACH SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN THE MATTER OF CONDONA T ION OF DELAY. 3.1 IT IS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY GAVE REASONS FOR DELAY CAUSED IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT (A) , WHICH WA S NOT CONSIDERED. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION , LD.CIT (A) SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THE REASON FOR DELAY . WE OBSERVE THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION V.MST.KATILI & ORS(1987) 167 ITR 471 AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF CONCORD OF INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., V.SMT. NIMALA DEVI AND ORS.118 ITR 507.MST.KATIJI(SUPRA), HAS EXPLAINED THE PRINCIPLES THAT NEED TO BE KEPT IN MIND WHILE CONSIDERING AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS EM PHASIZED THAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE SHOULD PREVAIL OVER TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS. THE C OURT AS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT A LITIGANT DO E S NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LODGING T H E APPEAL LATE. THE COURT HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT EVERYDAYS D ELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED DOES NOT MEAN THAT A PEDANTIC APPROACH SHOULD BE TAKEN. THE DOCTRINE MUST BE APPLIED IN A RATIONAL COMMON SENSE AND PRAGMATIC MANNER. THERE IS NOTH ING ON RECORD BROUGHT BY LD.CIT (A) TO EVIDENCE ANYTHING CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE. KEEPING I N ITA NOS. 324 - 328 (B)/201 9 AND ITA NOS.1 719 - 1721 (B)/2019 4 VIEW , PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT REFERRED TO HEREIN ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DELAY I N FILING APPEALS BEFORE LD. CIT (A) D ESERVES TO BE CONDONED. 3.2 IT IS OBSERVED THAT LD.CIT (A) HAS NOT DECIDED APPEAL S ON MERITS OF THE CASE AND THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO LD.CIT(A) TO PASS DETAILED ORDER ON MERITS BY GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE ALL RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE LD.CIT(A) AS CALLED FOR. IN THE RESULT , ALL APPEAL S FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 - 12 - 2019. SD/ - SD/ - (A.K.GARODIA ) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13 - 12 - 2019 *AM COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5. DR 6. ITO (TDS) 7.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTR AR