M/s. Pelican Realty Projects Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CPC TDS, , GHAZIABAD

ITA 2253/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7193 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MADHU SRUTHI NEELAKANTAN
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; TDS
• Section: 234E; 200A; 201

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO S . 2252, 2253, 2254 & 2255 /CHNY/ 201 9 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2015 - 16 [Q - 1], [Q - 3], [Q - 3] AND 2016 - 17 [Q - 1] M/S . PELI CAN REALTY PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, OLD NO.15, NEW NO.31, RAJAMANNAR STREET, T. NAGAR, C HENNAI 600 017. [PAN: AA CCH 1963J ] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : M S . MADHU SRUTHI NEELAKANTAN , ADV OCATE /RESPONDENT BY : M R. AR.V.SREENIVASAN, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 1 9 . 1 2 .2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 9 .12 .2019 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : TH E S E ARE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 17 , CHENNAI IN APPEAL NOS. I.T.A. NO S.412 TO 415/18 - 19 [412 (AY.2015 - 16 - 26Q - Q - 3, 413 AY.2015 - 16 - 26 Q - Q - 1, 414 AY.2015 - 16 - 24Q - Q - 3 AND 415 AY.2016 - 17 - 24Q - Q - 1] DATED 15.07.2019 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2015 - 16 & 2016 - 17. ITA NO S . 2252, 2253, 2254 & 2255/CHNY/2019 : - 2 - : 2 . M S . MADHU SRUTHI NEELAKANTAN, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND MR. AR.V.SREENIVASAN, JCIT REPRE SENTED ON BEHAL F OF THE R EVENUE . 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BY NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE ON MERIT WAS AGAINST THE LEVY OF THE LATE FILING FEE U/S.2 34E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT ON MERITS THE ISSUE WAS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN VARIOUS CASES BY THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT THE LEVY U/S.234E PRIOR TO 0 1.06.2015 WAS INV ALID AS THERE WAS NO ENABLING PROVISION IN SECTION 200A VIS - - VIS CLAUSE (1)( C ) OF 234E FOR THE LEVY OF SUCH FEE WHILE PROCESSING THE STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF MORE THAN 1400 DAYS I N FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS HAS BEEN EXTRACTED BY HIM IN PARAS 6.1 OF HIS ORDER . IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE DELAY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE MISTAKEN IMPRESSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONCE THE RETURN IS FILED, THE ISSUE WOULD C OME TO REST IN SO FAR AS THE TDS HAD BEEN DEDUCTED AND PAID WITHIN THE TIME. IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED THAT THE ASSESSEE UNDERSTOOD THAT SEPARATE APPEALS ARE TO BE FILED. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT IMMEDIATELY THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE AUDITOR FOR FILING THE APPEALS, THUS CAUSING THE DELAY. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE DELAY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BONAFIDE BELIEF. IT WAS A PRAYER THAT THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED AND THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR A DJUDICATION ON MERITS. ITA NO S . 2252, 2253, 2254 & 2255/CHNY/2019 : - 3 - : 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 6. WHEN TECHNICALITIES IS PITTED A GAINST SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE , THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW ARE TH AT TECHNICALITIES MUST STAND DOWN . I N THE PRESENT CASE ADMITTEDLY THE ISSUES ARE IN RESPECT OF THE LEVY U/S.234E OF THE ACT PRIOR TO 01.06.2015 . THIS BEING SO, AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING THE DELAY IS A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION AND THE EXPLANATION HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE , THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARE CONDONE D . CONSEQUENTLY, THE ISSUES IN THESE APPEALS ON MERITS ARE REST ORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 9 TH DECEMBER , 2019 IN CHENNAI. SD/ - ( . ) ( S. JAYARAMAN ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI, / DATED: 1 9 TH DECEMBER , 2 019 . IA, SR. PS SD/ - ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / CIT(A) 4. / CIT 5. / DR 6. / GF