IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 17 43 /BANG/20 1 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S. TESSOLVE SEMICONDUCTOR PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.31, P2 ELECTRONICS CITY, PHASE II, BENGALURU 560 100. PAN : A A B CT 9789 M VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS CIRCLE 3(1), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI. TSHERING ONGELA, ADDL. CIT (DR)(ITAT), BENGALURU DATE OF HEARING : 2 4 .06.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 .0 6 .2020 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, AM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-, BENGALURU, DATED 10.05.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS)- 7, BANGALORE ['CIT(A)'] IN THE CASE OF TESSOLVE SEMICONDUCTOR PRIVATE LIMITED ('TSPL' OR 'THE APPELLANT' OR 'THE ASSESSEE' OR 'THE COMPANY') IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ITA NO. 1743/BANG/2019 PAGE 2 OF 3 OF THE PRESENT CASE AND IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE. 1. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON THE TECHNICAL GROUND THAT THE APPEAL IS DEFECTIVE AND NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE MERITS OF THE CASE OR PROVIDING A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LD DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), CIRCLE 3(1), HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS, IN LEVYING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT OF A SUM AMOUNTING TO RS 2,39,200 ON ACCOUNT OF DELAYED FILING OF TDS STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT SUCH FEES IS NOT APPLICABLE TO CASES PRIOR TO 01.06.2015. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 24.06.2020 AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD WHICH IS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN SPITE OF THIS, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS DATE OF HEARING AND THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT ALSO AND THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL WAS HEARD EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT IS NOTED THAT THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER A DELAY OF 25 DAYS AND ALSO AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT AND THE REGISTRY OF THE TRIBUNAL NOTED A DEFECT IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT THE NO. OF DAYS DELAY IS NOT STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT AND THIS DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY IN THE DEFECT MEMO ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY THAT NUMBER OF DAYS DELAY IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH SOME OTHER DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN SPITE OF THIS, ASSESSEE HAS NOT REMOVED THE DEFECTS NOTIFIED BY THE REGISTRY OF THE TRIBUNAL. EVEN A FRESH AFFIDAVIT HAS NOT BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MENTIONING NUMBER OF DAYS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL ITA NO. 1743/BANG/2019 PAGE 3 OF 3 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL OF 25 DAYS CANNOT BE CONDONED BECAUSE NO PROPER APPLICATION FOR SUCH CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER REMOVING THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY OF THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT ADMITTED BECAUSE OF DELAY WHICH IS NOT CONDONED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED: 26 TH JUNE, 2020. /NS/* COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.