Zen Adsorptions Private Limited, Hyderabad V. TDS , Range-2, Hyderabad

ITA 1736/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4980 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2021
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; TDS
• Section: 200A

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1734, 1735 AND 1736/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2013 - 14 ZEN ADSORPTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD. AAACZ1738 K VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), TDS WARD - 2(4), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY: SHRI ROHIT MUJUMDAR, DR DATE OF HEARING: 11/1/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04 /2/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) - 8, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NOS. 10175, 10176 & 10174/CIT(A) - 8/HYD/2017 - 18, DATED 25/06/2018 PASSED U/S. 200A R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY: 2013 - 14. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THREE SIMILAR GROUNDS IN ALL ITS APPEALS WHICH ARE IDENTICAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) - 8, HYDERABAD IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT MOVED ANY REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS CONTRARY TO 2 THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE ORDER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WAS FILED IN PERSON DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. THEREFORE, IN HOLDING TO THE CONTRARY. 3. ANY OTHER GROUND(S) THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING, NONE APPEARED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT ITS CASES. ON EXAMINING THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 1271 DAYS, 1272 DAYS AND 1084 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) FROM THE DATE OF ORDERS OF THE LD. DCI T, CPC - TDS PASSED U/S. 200A(1) OF THE ACT. FROM THE RECORD S , WE HAVE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAD PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND ALSO FILED APPLICATIONS SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY FOR ALL THE THREE QUARTERS, THE LD. CIT (A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND DISM ISSED THE APPEALS. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL S BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) MAY BE CONDONED AND THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT (A) IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD ON MERITS. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BEFORE US STATING THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE FOR THE DELAY WHILE SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMPLIED. THE LD.DR. FURTHER ARGUED STATING THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH EVIDENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUST IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY 3 AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBM ISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. THE LD. CIT (A) HAD GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY AND FURNISH EVIDENCE FOR THE SAME. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONVINCINGLY EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WITH EVIDENCE , THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE . IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO N OT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE . HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE ISSUE S INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS AND THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL S BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL S AFRESH ON MERITS BY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH , WE ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT I S ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE TH R EE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. 4 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE FOURTH OF FEBRUARY , 2021. SD/ - SD/ - (S.S. GODARA) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 04 TH FEBRUARY , 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1. M/S. ZEN ADSORPTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED , PLOT NO.35, ZEN HOUSE, SWAMY AYYAPPA SOCIETY, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD - 500081. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), TDS WARD - 2(4), HYDERABAD. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 8, HYDERABAD. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), HYDERABAD. 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE