M/s. Programming Research Software Technology Private Limited, Bengaluru V. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward- 2(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1804/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3119 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-03-2020
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 234E; 73; 20

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.1783 TO 1808/BANG/2019 M/S.PROGRAMMING RESEARCH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., BENGALURU IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BBENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1783 /BANG/2019 ASSESSMENTYEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 1784 TO 1798/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 ITA NO. 1799 TO 1806/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 ITA NO. 1807 TO 1808/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 M/S. PROGRAMMING RESEARCH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. NO.23/2, CPS HOUSE, 1 ST FLOOR ULSOOR ROAD BENGALURU-560042. PAN NO : BLRP06170D VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3) BENGALURU APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURESH MUTHU KRISHNAN, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJENDRA CHANDEKAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 11.03.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.03.2020 O R D E R PER BENCH: ALL THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST COMMON ORDER DATED 24.6.2019 PASSED BY LD. ITA NOS.1783 TO 1808/BANG/2019 M/S.PROGRAMMING RESEARCH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., BENGALURU PAGE 2 OF 8 CIT(A)-13, BENGALURU AND THEY RELATE TO ASSESSMENTS YEARS 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. ALL THE SE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE IS CONTESTING THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEALS IN LIMINE, WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS B EFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEE HAD PRAYED BEFORE LD CIT(A) THAT THE FEE LEVIED U/S 234E OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 ['TH E ACT' FOR SHORT] FOR THE BELATED FILING OF STATEMENT OF T DS SHOULD BE DELETED. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE STATED IN BR IEF. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2012-13 TO 2015-16 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 TO 2016-17. HOWEVER, THE STATEMENT OF TDS WAS FILED FOR VARIOUS QUARTERS BEL ATEDLY. HENCE, WHILE PROCESSING THE STATEMENT OF TDS U/S 20 0A OF THE ACT, FEE U/S 234E OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED ON THE STATEMENT OF TDS FILED FOR VARIOUS QUARTERS. THE A SSESSEE CHALLENGED THE FEE LEVIED U/S 234E OF THE ACT BY FI LING APPEALS BEFORE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE APPEALS CA ME TO BE FILED BELATEDLY BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BY 124 DAYS TO 128 ITA NOS.1783 TO 1808/BANG/2019 M/S.PROGRAMMING RESEARCH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., BENGALURU PAGE 3 OF 8 DAYS. THE DETAILS OF DELAY HAVE BEEN TABULATED BEL OW BY LD. CIT(A). 4. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FATEHRA J SINGHVI 73 TAXMANN.COM 252 BEFORE LD CIT(A) AND PRA YED THAT THE LATE FEE U/S 234E OF THE ACT SHOULD BE DEL ETED. 5. WITH REGARD TO THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PERSON LOOKING AF TER THE FINANCIAL AFFAIRS OF THE COMPANY WAS BUSY IN OTHER MATTERS ITA NOS.1783 TO 1808/BANG/2019 M/S.PROGRAMMING RESEARCH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., BENGALURU PAGE 4 OF 8 AND FORGOT TO PURSUE THE APPEALS IN TIME. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY. THE LD. CIT(A) PLACED RELI ANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HYDERABAD BENCH OF TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF T. KISHAN VS. ACIT {IT(SS)A NOS.23 TO 25/HYD/2011} AND REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DELAY. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISMISSED ALL THE APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEE IN LIMINE, BY NOT ADMITTING THEM. AGGRIEVED, THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED THESE APPEALS BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A MARGINAL DELAY OF AROUND 125 DAYS IN FILING ALL THESE APPEAL S BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. A.R. INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE PETITION FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) EXPLAINING THE DEL AY, WHICH READ AS UNDER: ITA NOS.1783 TO 1808/BANG/2019 M/S.PROGRAMMING RESEARCH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., BENGALURU PAGE 5 OF 8 7. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED REASONABLE EXPLANATION AND NONE OF IT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE BY LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, HE S UBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING APPEALS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BE CONDONED AND THE LATE FEE LEVIED U/S 234E OF THE AC T BE DELETED. 8. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED PROPER EXPLANATIONS FOR THE DELAY AND THE REASONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE VAGUE. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT( A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO CONDONE THE DELAY. ITA NOS.1783 TO 1808/BANG/2019 M/S.PROGRAMMING RESEARCH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., BENGALURU PAGE 6 OF 8 9. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. FR OM THE PERUSAL OF REASONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, W E NOTICE THAT A STAFF NAMED MRS. MANJULA, WHO WAS LOO KING AFTER THE FINANCIAL AFFAIRS OF THE COMPANY WAS ENTR USTED WITH THE WORK OF PURSUING THE IMPUGNED MATTER RELAT ING TO THE FEE LEVIED U/S 234E OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO STA TED THAT THE GROUP WAS UNDERGOING A CHANGE IN THE MANAGEMENT AND OWNERSHIP AND THE ABOVE SAID MRS. MANJULA WAS OCCUPIED WITH THE SAME. IN THE MEANTIME, MRS. MANJ ULA HAS ALSO GONE ON MEDICAL LEAVE FOR 14 DAYS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE FACTORS HAVE LED TO FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE LD CIT(A) BELATEDLY. 10. AT THIS STAGE, IT IS RELEVANT TO THE OBSERVATIO NS MADE BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST KATIGI AND OTHERS 167 ITR 471 ( SC), WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONFERRED POWER TO CONDO NE DELAY BY ENACTING SECTION 5 OF THE INDIAN LIMITATION ACT OF 1963 IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIC E TO PARTIES BY DISPOSING OF MATTERS ON MERITS. THE EXPRESSION SU FFICIENT CAUSE EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE IS ADEQUATELY EL ASTIC TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO APPLY THE LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVES THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, FOR THAT IS TH E LIFE-PURPOSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE INSTITUTION OF COURTS. TH E LEARNED JUDGES EMPHASIZED ON ADOPTION OF A LIBERAL APPROACH WHILE ITA NOS.1783 TO 1808/BANG/2019 M/S.PROGRAMMING RESEARCH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., BENGALURU PAGE 7 OF 8 DEALING WITH THE APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DE LAY AS ORDINARILY A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LODGING AN APPEAL LATE AND REFUSAL TO CONDONE DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERITORIOUS MATTER BEING THROWN OUT AT THE VERY THR ESHOLD AND THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE BEING DEFEATED. IT WAS STRESS ED THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE A PEDANTIC APPROACH BUT THE DOCTRINE THAT IS TO BE KEPT IN MIND IS THAT THE MATTER HAS TO BE DEALT WIT H IN A RATIONAL COMMONSENSE PRAGMATIC MANNER AND CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED OVER T HE TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS. IT WAS ALSO RULED THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IS OCCASIONED DELIBERATELY OR ON ACCOUNT OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE AND THAT THE COURTS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO LEGALISE INJUSTICE ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS AS IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO REMOVE INJUSTICE. IN THE SAID CASE THE DIVISION BE NCH OBSERVED THAT THE STATE WHICH REPRESENTS THE COLLECTIVE CAUS E OF THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT DESERVE A LITIGANT-NON GRATA STA TUS AND THE COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE INFORMED WITH THE SPIRIT AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE PROVISION IN THE COURSE OF INTERP RETATION OF THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE. 11. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE REASONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THE APP EALS BELATEDLY BEFORE LD CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE IMPUGNED APPEALS BEFORE LD. CIT (A). ITA NOS.1783 TO 1808/BANG/2019 M/S.PROGRAMMING RESEARCH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., BENGALURU PAGE 8 OF 8 12. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DIS POSED THE APPEALS ON MERITS. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE T HE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE ALL THE APPEALS TO HIS FILE FOR ADJUDICATING THEM ON MERITS. 13. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.3.2020 SD/- (BEENA PILLAI) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED 11 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.