Bank of Baroda, Surat V. The Jt.CIT.,TDS Range, Surat

ITA 2203/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67969 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K PATEL AR SHRI K C MATHEWS
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Competent authority

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! '# '# '# '# $ %&, ! BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER APPEAL(S) BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT SL. NO(S). ITA NO(S) ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) APPELLANT (S) RESPOND- ENT(S) 1. 2203/AHD/2012 2004-05 BANK OF BARODA SERVICE BRANCH 3 RD FLOOR, SAIFEE BUILDING, DUTCH ROAD, NANPURA, SURAT-395 001 PAN:AAACB1534F THE JT.CIT TDS RANGE, SURAT 2. 2204/AHD/2012 2005-06 -DO- -DO- 3. 2205/AHD/2012 2006-07 -DO- -DO- 4. 2216/AHD/2012 2003-04 -DO- -DO- ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K.PATEL, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI K.C.MATHEWS, SR.DR $'' ( & / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 19/11/2013 *+, ( & / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/11/2013 - / O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE FOUR APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE-BANK ARE DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS )-I, SURAT (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) ALL IDENTICALLY DATED 08/08/20 12 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 2004-05, 2005-06,2006-07 & 2 003-04. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED O RDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. THE COMMON GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE AS UNDER (EXTRACTED FROM ITA NO.2216/AHD/2012, FOR AY 2003-0 4 LEAD CASE):- ITA NOS.2203,22 04,2205 & 2216/AHD/2012 BANK OF BARODA VS.JT.CIT AYS2004-05,2005-06,2006-07 & 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY - 2 - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.2,56,281/- (FOR AY 2003-04), RS.2,52, 431/- (FOR AY 2004-05), RS.2,38,436/- (FOR AY 2005-06) AND RS.3,5 4,982/- (FOR AY 2006-07) U/S.271C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE ADDITION MAY PLEASE BE DELETED AS LEARNED MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY DEEM IT PROP ER. 3. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE ANY GROUND(S) EITHER BEFORE OR IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEA L. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ITO (TDS)- 1, SURAT NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TDS FROM THE PAYMENTS MAD E TO THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AS MICR CHARGES DURING THE RELEVANT Y EAR. ON REFRENCE, PROCEEDINGS FOR PENALTY U/S.271C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WERE INITIAT ED BY THE JT.CIT TDS RANGE, SURAT AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE ORDER LEVYING PEN ALTY OF RS.2,56,281/- (FOR AY 2003-04). AGAINST THIS, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF DELAY. 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI M.K.PATEL S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A NATIONALIZED BANK AND FOR FILING THE APPEAL IT REQUIRES APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THIS TAKE S A LOT OF TIME IN ANY GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE A LIBERAL APPROACH WHIL E DECIDING THE APPEAL. ITA NOS.2203,22 04,2205 & 2216/AHD/2012 BANK OF BARODA VS.JT.CIT AYS2004-05,2005-06,2006-07 & 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY - 3 - 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SHRI K.C.MATHEWS STR ONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE O N THE GROUND THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(3) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE I NVOKED IN THE PRESENT CASE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH EXISTE NCE OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE. THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN A GENERAL EXPLANATION FOR DELAY WITHOUT GIVING SPECIFIC DETAILS LIKE DATE-WISE DETAILS OF MOVEME NT OF PROPOSAL FOR SEEKING APPROVAL TO FILE APPEAL. SINCE THE DELAY I NVOLVED IS OF APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AND APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE DELAY IS NOT CONDONED AND APPEAL IS DISM ISSED. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE RELEVANT DE TAILS COULD HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, ATLEAST A CHANCE WOULD HAVE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE-BANK. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE MATTER, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT A LIBERAL APPROACH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE LD.CIT(A ) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS A N ATIONALIZED BANK AND IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN PERMISSION/APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHO RITY AND THIS CONSUMES TIME THEREBY RESULT INTO DELAY. THEREFORE , WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE IS DIRE CTED TO PLACE ON RECORD THE REASON FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PER IOD OF LIMITATION BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. HENC E, THIS APPEAL IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR FRESH DE CISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THE CASES, WE ALLOW ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES ONLY. ITA NOS.2203,22 04,2205 & 2216/AHD/2012 BANK OF BARODA VS.JT.CIT AYS2004-05,2005-06,2006-07 & 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY - 4 - 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ($ %&) ! ! ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/ 11 /2013 0.., '.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS - ( 1&2 32,& - ( 1&2 32,& - ( 1&2 32,& - ( 1&2 32,&/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 45 / THE APPELLANT 2. 1645 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ## & $7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. $7() / THE CIT(A)-I, SURAT 5. 2'%8 1& , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 89 :' / GUARD FILE. -$ -$ -$ -$ / BY ORDER, 62& 1& //TRUE COPY// ; ;; ;/ // / #< #< #< #< ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 19.11.13(DICTATION-PAD 7-PAG ES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19.11.13 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.20.11.13 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 20.11.13 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER