Ms. Seena Deepak, Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, CPC -TDS, Ghaziabad

ITA 2122/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8060 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NISHI PADMA JT C IT BENG ALURU
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 234E; 200A; 201; 73; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B R BASKARAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2117/BANG/2019 2014 - 15 211 8 /BANG/2019 2014 - 15 211 9 /BANG/2019 20 13 - 14 21 20 /BANG/2019 2014 - 15 21 2 1 /BANG/2019 2015 - 16 21 2 2 /BANG/2019 201 3 - 14 21 2 3 /BANG/2019 2014 - 15 21 2 4 /BANG/2019 2015 - 16 21 2 5 /BANG/2019 2013 - 14 21 2 6 /BANG/2019 2013 - 14 21 2 7 /BANG/2019 2014 - 15 21 2 8 /BANG/2019 2014 - 15 21 2 9 /BANG/2019 2015 - 16 21 3 0 /BANG/2019 2013 - 14 21 31 /BANG/2019 2013 - 14 21 3 2 /BANG/2019 2014 - 15 MS. SEENA DEEPAK, FLAT NO.A2, NO.102, WHITE HOUSE, R T NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 032. PAN: ANJPD 9569K TAN: BLRS 30092 G VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD. UP. AP PELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI NAREND RA SHARMA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. NISHI PADMA, JT.C IT(DR)(ITAT ), BENGALURU. DATE OF HEARING : 09 .01.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 .01.2020 ITA NOS.2117 TO 2132/BANG/2019 PAGE 2 OF 9 O R D E R PER BENCH THESE ARE A BATCH OF 16 APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST A COMMON ORDER DATED 22.4.2019 BY CIT(APPEALS)-13, BA NGALORE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 TO 2015-16. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED A T SOURCE (TDS) FOR VARIOUS QUARTERS IN FORM NO.24Q/26Q/27EQ FOR FY 201 2-13 TO 2014-15 (AY 2013-14 TO 2015-16). THE STATEMENT WAS PROCESS ED BY CPC TDS, BENGALURU. THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE ABOVE T DS STATEMENT AND THEREFORE THE AO BY INTIMATION U/S. 200A OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT, 1961 [THE ACT] LEVIED LATE FEE U/S. 234E OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT, 1961 [THE ACT]. UNDER SEC.234E OF THE ACT, IF THERE IS A DELAY IN F ILING STATEMENT OF TDS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME THEN THE PERSON RESPONSI BLE FOR MAKING PAYMENT AND FILING RETURN OF TDS IS LIABLE TO PAY BY WAY OF FEE A SUM OF RS.200/- PER DAY DURING WHICH THE FAILURE CONTINUES. SECTION 23 4E OF THE ACT INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 1.7.2012. READS AS F OLLOWS:- FEE FOR DEFAULT IN FURNISHING STATEMENTS. 234E. (1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF TH E ACT, WHERE A PERSON FAILS TO DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED A STATEMENT WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 2 00 OR THE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C, HE SHAL L BE LIABLE TO PAY, BY WAY OF FEE, A SUM OF TWO HUNDRED RUPEES FOR EVERY DAY DURING WHICH THE FAILURE CONTINUES. (2) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTIBLE OR COLLECTIBLE, AS THE CASE MAY BE. (3) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) SHALL BE PAID BEFORE DELIVERING OR CAUSING TO BE DELIVERED A STAT EMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR T HE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C. (4) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO A STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR TH E PROVISO TO SUB- ITA NOS.2117 TO 2132/BANG/2019 PAGE 3 OF 9 SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C WHICH IS TO BE DELIVERE D OR CAUSED TO BE DELIVERED FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE OR TAX COLL ECTED AT SOURCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JULY , 2012. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDERS, THE ASSESSE E FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION BEFOR E CIT(A) WAS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 1.7.2012. SECTION 200A OF THE ACT IS A PRO VISION WHICH DEALS WITH HOW A RETURN OF TDS FILED U/S.200(3) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE PROCESSED AND IT READS AS FOLLOWS:- PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. 200A. (1) WHERE A STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOU RCE OR A CORRECTION STATEMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY A PERSON DEDU CTING ANY SUM (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION AS DEDUC TOR) UNDER SECTION 200, SUCH STATEMENT SHALL BE PROCESSED IN T HE FOLLOWING MANNER, NAMELY: (A) THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL B E COMPUTED AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS, NAMELY: (I) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE STATEMENT; OR (II) AN INCORRECT CLAIM, APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMA TION IN THE STATEMENT; (B) THE INTEREST, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STATEMENT; (C) THE FEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E; (D) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DU E TO, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF TH E AMOUNT COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AND CLAUSE (C) AGAINST AN Y AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 200 OR SECTION 201 OR SECTION 23 4E AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY WAY OF TAX OR INTEREST OR FEE; ITA NOS.2117 TO 2132/BANG/2019 PAGE 4 OF 9 (E) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED A ND SENT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PA YABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UNDER CLAUSE (D); AND (F) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PU RSUANCE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (D) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR: PROVIDED THAT NO INTIMATION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE SENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FI NANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED. EXPLANATION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, 'AN INCORRECT CLAIM APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMEN T' SHALL MEAN A CLAIM, ON THE BASIS OF AN ENTRY, IN THE STATEMENT (I) OF AN ITEM, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANOT HER ENTRY OF THE SAME OR SOME OTHER ITEM IN SUCH STATEMENT; (II) IN RESPECT OF RATE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SO URCE, WHERE SUCH RATE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF TH IS ACT. (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS UN DER SUB- SECTION (1), THE BOARD MAY MAKE A SCHEME FOR CENTRA LISED PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO EXPEDITIOUSLY DETERMINE THE TAX PAYABLE BY, OR THE REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR AS REQUIRED UNDER THE SAID SUB-SECTION . 4. CLAUSE (C) TO (F) OF SECTION 200A(1) WAS SUBS TITUTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 1.6.2015. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT AO COULD LEVY FEE U/S.234E OF THE ACT WHILE PROCESSING A RETURN OF TD S FILED U/S.200(3) OF THE ACT ONLY BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.200A(1) (C), (D) & (F) OF THE ACT AND THOSE PROVISIONS CAME INTO FORCE ONLY FROM 1.6. 2015 AND THEREFORE THE AUTHORITY ISSUING INTIMATION U/S. 200A OF THE ACT W HILE PROCESSING RETURN OF TDS FILED U/S.200(3) OF THE ACT, COULD NOT LEVY FEE U/S. 234E OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF STATEMENT OF TDS FILED PRIOR TO 1.6.2015 . THE ASSESSEE, THUS, CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF CHARGING OF FEE U/S. 234 E OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF FATEHRAJ SINGHVI V. UOI [2016] 73 TAXMANN.COM 252 WHEREIN ITA NOS.2117 TO 2132/BANG/2019 PAGE 5 OF 9 THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD THAT AMENDMEN T MADE U/S. 200A PROVIDING THAT FEE U/S. 234E OF THE ACT COULD BE CO MPUTED AT THE TIME OF PROCESSING OF RETURN AND ISSUE OF INTIMATION HAS CO ME INTO EFFECT ONLY FROM 1.6.2015 AND HAD ONLY PROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND THEREF ORE, NO COMPUTATION OF FEE U/S.234E OF THE ACT FOR DELAYED FILING OF RETUR N OF TDS WHILE PROCESSING A RETURN OF TDS U/S.234E OF THE ACT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO 1.6.201 5. 5. THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BELATED AND THERE WAS NO APPLICATION FOR CONDONATIO N OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD HAS DRAWN A CHA RT OF DATES ON WHICH THE ORDERS WERE PASSED BY THE AO, THE DATE ON WHICH IT WAS SERVED AND THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPEALS WERE FILED. THE SAID CHA RT IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY:- F.Y. APPEAL NO. QTR DATE OF ORDER U/S 200A(1) RWS 234E / DATE OF SERVICE OF ORDER DATE OF FILING OF APPEAL DELAY IN FILING APPEAL SHORT DEDUN, INT. ON SHORT/ LATE PAYMENT ETC. 234E FEES TOTAL DISPUTED 2012-13 10058/2018- 19 24Q-Q2 27/09/2016 28/02/2019 1219 410 48000 48410 10059/2018- 19 24Q-Q3 27/09/2016 28/02/2019 1219 4 20 29600 30020 11232/2018- 19 24Q-Q4 18/10/2013 02/03/2019 1931 0 5600 5600 11234/2018- 19 26Q-Q3 08/09/2013 02/03/2019 1971 4 00 30200 30600 11235/2018- 19 26Q-Q4 08/09/2013 02/03/2019 1971 3 910 6200 10110 11233/2018- 19 26Q-Q2 08/09/2013 02/03/2019 1971 1 040 48600 49640 TOTAL 6180 168200 174380 2013-14 10060/2018- 19 24Q-Q1 06/07/2014 01/03/2019 1669 0 44450 44450 11225/2018- 19 24Q-Q2 06/07/2014 01/03/2019 1669 0 52000 52000 11228/2018-19 24Q-Q3 06/04/2014 01/03/2019 1761 0 33600 33600 11226/2018-19 24Q-Q4 06/07/2014 01/03/2019 1669 0 9600 9600 11204/2018-19 26Q-Q1 21/11/2016 27/02/2019 798 229 0 43800 46090 11206/2018-19 26Q-Q2 21/11/2016 28/02/2019 799 585 60 25400 83960 11207/2018- 19 26Q-Q3 21/11/2016 28/02/2019 799 47 090 7000 54090 TOTAL 107940 215850 323790 2014-15 11231/2018- 19 24Q-Q2 01/11/2014 01/03/2019 1551 0 2400 2400 11214/2018- 19 26Q-02 28/12/2016 28/02/2019 762 44 0 2400 2840 10061/2018- 19 26Q-03 08/01/2017 28/02/2019 751 33 40 1800 5140 TOTAL 3780 6600 10380 ITA NOS.2117 TO 2132/BANG/2019 PAGE 6 OF 9 FROM THE AFORESAID CHART, THE CIT(A) NOTICED THAT T HERE WAS DELAY RANGING FROM 751 DAYS TO 1971 DAYS IN FILING APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. 6. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATIO N OF DELAY IN FILING APPEALS BEFORE CIT(A). THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DELAY IN FILING APPEAL WAS THAT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS WAS SMALL AND ALL AFFAIRS HAD TO BE LOOKED AFTER BY THE ASSESSEE AS PROPRIETOR. FURTHER THE TDS COMPLIANCE ARE WEB BASED AND SYSTEM DRIVEN AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO LONG INTO THE TRACES AND REPLY TO THE NOT ICES/ORDERS WITHIN STIPULATED TIME. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE TDS A SSESSMENT ORDERS WHICH WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) WERE NO T SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STATED THAT AFTER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FATERAJ SINGHVI (SUPRA) , HE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT NO LATE FEE WILL BE L EVIED U/S.234-E OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1.6.2015 AS THE E NABLING PROVISIONS U/S.200A OF THE ACT, WERE INTRODUCED ONLY FROM 1.6. 2015. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER RECEIVED A DEMAND NOTICE FOR LATE FEE U/S.2 34-E OF THE ACT AND APPROACHED HIS AUDITOR AND THEY INFORMED THAT THE R EMEDY WAS TO FILE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDERS U/S.200A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE AND THE DELAY WAS DUE TO BONAFIDE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RE LIANCE ON DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & OTHERS AIR 1987 1353 (SC) WHEREIN PRINCIPLES REGARDING CONDONATION OF DELAY HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT. 7. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WA S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARGINAL DELAY AND INORDINATE DELAY AND MAD E REFERENCE TO A DECISION OF ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF T. KRISHNA VS. ACIT(IT(SS)A.NO.23 & 25/HYD/2011) AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD ITA NOS.2117 TO 2132/BANG/2019 PAGE 7 OF 9 EXPLAIN THE DELAY AS ONE THAT OCCURRED DUE TO CIRCU MSTANCES BEYOND HIS CONTROL. HE ALSO REFERRED TO DECISION OF HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMALAL VS. REWA COALFIELDS LTD. AIR 1962 SC 361 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT DELAY CAUSED WHICH BY DUE CARE AND ATTENTION C OULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED CANNOT BE SAID TO BE REASONABLE CAUSE. HE ALSO REFERRED TO DECISIONS WHERE DELAY WAS NOT CONDONED FOR THE REAS ON THAT THE CONDUCT AND NEGLIGENCE OF THE ASSESSEE EXISTED FOR THE DELA Y IN FILING APPEAL. HE HELD THAT THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ROUTINE EXPLANATION WHICH CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS REASONABLE OR SUFFICIEN T CAUSE. THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE APPEALS AS UNADMITTED WIT H THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 10.4 THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, N OT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIE D IN THE DICTUM: VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBSVENIUNT . THE DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED SIMPLY BECAUSE THE APPELLANT'S CASE IS HARD AND CALLS FOR SYMPATHY OR MERELY OUT OF BENEVOLENCE TO THE PA RTY SEEKING RELIEF. IT IS TRUE THAT AN ORDER CONDONING THE DELA Y IN FILING THE APPEAL IS A DISCRETIONARY ONE BUT IT IS ALSO PERTIN ENT TO NOTE THAT IF DISCRETION IS EXERCISED ON THE WRONG PRINCIPLES BY GIVING UNDUE LIBERAL APPROACH WHICH IS NOT AT ALL JUSTICE ORIENT ED, THEN THE PURPOSE OF THESE PROVISIONS WOULD BE DEFEATED AND F RUSTRATED. THUS THE DELAY IS NOTHING BUT NEGLIGENCE AND INACTI ON OF THE APPELLANT WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN VERY WELL AVOIDED B Y THE EXERCISE OF DUE CARE AND ATTENTION. THERE EXISTS NO SUFFICIENT OR GOOD REASON FOR CONDONING INORDINATE DELAY IN FILIN G THE PRESENT APPEAL. SO THERE IS NO REASON FOR CONDONING SUCH DE LAY OF 1971 DAYS IN THIS CASE. CONSIDERING ABOVE THE DELAY IS N OT CONDONED. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDERS OF THE CIT( A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED STAND OF THE ASSESSEE AS PUT FO RTH BEFORE CIT(A). ITA NOS.2117 TO 2132/BANG/2019 PAGE 8 OF 9 9. THE LEARNED DR REITERATED THE STAND OF THE RE VENUE AS REFLECTED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LE ARNED DR AND ALSO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS POINTED OUT THAT AN INTIMATION U/S.200A OF THE ACT BECAME AN APPEALABLE ORDER U/S.246A OF THE ACT, ONLY CONSEQUE NT TO AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 1.6.2015. PRIOR TO TH E SAID DATE AN INTIMATION U/S.200A WAS NOT APPEALABLE. AT THE OUTSET, WE OBS ERVE THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF MST. KATIJI (SUPRA) , HAS EXPLAINED THE PRINCIPLES THAT NEED TO BE KEPT IN MIND WHILE CONSI DERING AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS EM PHASIZED THAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE SHOULD PREVAIL OVER TECHNICAL C ONSIDERATIONS. THE COURT HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND T O BENEFIT BY LODGING THE APPEAL LATE. THE COURT HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT EVER Y DAYS DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED DOES NOT MEAN THAT A PEDANTIC APPROACH SH OULD BE TAKEN. THE DOCTRINE MUST BE APPLIED IN A RATIONAL COMMON SENSE AND PRAGMATIC MANNER. THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF MSV IT SOLUTIONS LTD. VS. ITO, WARD 16(4) ITA NOS. 177 & 178/HYD/2018 ORD ER DATED 26.10.2018 WHEREIN ON IDENTICAL FACTS NOTICING THAT THERE WAS NO LEGAL REMEDY PRIOR TO 1.6.2015 AGAINST AN INTIMATION U/S.200A OF THE ACT, THE HYDERABAD BENCH CONDONED DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). 11. CONSIDERING THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND KEEPING IN MIND THAT TECHNICALITIES SHOUL D NOT STAND IN THE WAY OF RENDERING SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS DESERVES TO BE CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY THE D ELAY IS CONDONED. SINCE THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERIT S, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND REMANDED TO THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WITH DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. ITA NOS.2117 TO 2132/BANG/2019 PAGE 9 OF 9 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSE E ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 17 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- ( B R BASKARAN ) ( N V VASUDEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT BANGALORE, DATED, THE 17 TH JANUARY, 2020. / DESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FIL E BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.