M/S. IBEX PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CPC, , GHAZIABAD

ITA 1879/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6605 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P MUTHUSHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: N ARJUN RAJ C A SHRI S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; TDS
• Section: 200A; 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !', $ '% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.1871 TO 1891/CHNY/2019 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S IBEX PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 177, RAHEJA TOWERS, 7 TH FLOOR, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002. PAN : AAACI 7988 N V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, GHAZIABAD. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. ARJUN RAJ, CA FOR SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. MUTHUSHANKAR, JCIT 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 03.10.2019 23( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.10.2019 / O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-17, DATED 30.05.2019 AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 13-14, 2014-15 AND 2015-16. 2. SHRI N. ARJUN RAJ, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ONE APPEAL AGAINS T THE ORDER OF 2 I.T.A. NOS.1871 TO 1891/CHNY/19 ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALL THE FOUR QUARTERS FOR TDS RETURN. THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL A GAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 196 1 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') AND NOT AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A VERY NOMINAL DELAY IN FILING ALL THE APPEALS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, INITIALLY ONE CONSOLIDATED APPEAL WAS FILED FOR ALL THE QUARTERS. SUBSEQUENTLY, INDEPEND ENT/SEPARATE APPEALS WERE FILED FOR ALL THE QUARTERS. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P. MUTHUSHANKAR, THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED A PPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT AND NOT A GAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. UNLESS THERE IS AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT IS NOT MA INTAINABLE. THE LD. D.R. HAS VERY FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IS DU E TO FILING OF CONSOLIDATED APPEAL FOR ALL THE FOUR QUARTERS IN A YEAR. 4. HAVING HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSE SSEE AND THE LD. D.R., THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT INITIALLY THE ASSESS EE FILED ONE APPEAL FOR ALL THE FOUR QUARTERS. IN OTHER WORDS, A CONSOLIDATED APPEAL WAS FILED FOR ALL THE FOUR QUARTERS. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILE D INDEPENDENT APPEALS FOR EACH QUARTER. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. THIS 3 I.T.A. NOS.1871 TO 1891/CHNY/19 TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS IS DUE TO MISUNDERSTANDING OF PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND THE ASSESSE E CANNOT BE PENALIZED MERELY BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO PROCEDURE FOR FILING OF APPEAL WAS MISUNDERSTOOD. MOREOVER, THE DELAY IS VERY NOMINAL IN ALL APPEALS. THEREFORE, CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS AND CONSIDERING THE APPEALS ON MERIT MAY NO T PREJUDICE THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE IN ANY WAY. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APP EALS AND DIRECTING THE CIT(APPEALS) TO DISPOSE THE APPEALS ON MERIT WOULD PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, DELAY IN FILING ALL THE A PPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) IS CONDONED. 5. THE LD. D.R. NOW CONTENDS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL T HAT THE APPEAL ITSELF IS NOT MAINTAINABLE SINCE THE APPEAL WAS FIL ED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. HAS TO BE EXAMINED BY TH E CIT(APPEALS) WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPEALS ON MERIT. SUFFICE TO SAY T HAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS IS CONDONED AND ALL THE APPEALS ARE REM ITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE C IT(APPEALS) SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE APPEALS ON MERIT AND THEREAFTER DECI DE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. 4 I.T.A. NOS.1871 TO 1891/CHNY/19 6. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, ALL THE APPEALS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 TH OCTOBER, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !') ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 17 TH OCTOBER, 2019. KRI. . ,167 87(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+/ APPELLANT 2. ,-*+/ RESPONDENT 3. 0 91 () /CIT(A)-17, CHENNAI 4. CIT(TDS), CHENNAI 5. 7: ,1 /DR 6. ;' < /GF.