WORKS MANAGER,GOVT. CENTRAL AUTOMOBILE WORKSHOP, CHENNAI V. ITO, TDS WARD - 3 (3), CHENNAI

ITA 2438/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3925 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: Y KAJA NAVAS
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay; TDS; Capital Gains
• Section: 234E; 200A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . , . , % BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.2432 TO 2442/CHNY/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14(24Q-QR2), 2013-14(24Q-QR3) , 2013-14-(24Q-QR4), 2014-15(24Q-QR1), 2014-15(24Q-Q2 ),2014-15(24Q- QR3), 2014-15(24Q-QR4), 2015-16(24Q-QR1),2015-16(24 Q-QR2),2015-16 (24Q-QR3) & 2015-16(24Q-QR4) WORKS MANAGER GOVT. CENTRAL AUTOMOBILE WORKSHOP, CHENNAI , NO.1, VELACHERY MAIN ROAD, VELACHERY, CHENNAI-600 042. VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 3(3), CHENNAI. PAN:AAAGA 1160N ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.Y.KAJA NAVAS, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. AR.V.SREENIVASAN, ADDL., CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 26.10.2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.10.2020 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THE BUNCH OF 11 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-17, CHENNAI DATED 15.07.2019 AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 (24Q-Q2 TO Q4, 2014-15 (24Q-Q1 TO Q4) AND 2015-16(24Q-Q1 TO Q4) . SINCE, THE FACTS A RE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMON, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THES E APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF, BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2 ITA NOS.2432 TO 2442/CHNY/2019 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- (A) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITIONER DID NOT GI VE ANY SPECIFIC REASONS FOR THE DELAY FROM 10.07.2015 TO 29.03.2019, THIS I S ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT, IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE PETITIONER HAD PLEADED TH AT 'THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THAT THERE IS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPE AL AND REQUESTS THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TO CONDONE TH E DELAY DUE TO THE FOLLOWING FACTS. AT THE TIME OF INTRODUCING THE SEC 234E ON OCT 2012 A LOT OF AGGRIEVED DEDUCTORS HAVE APPROACHED THE COURT AND THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF SEC 234E OF INCO ME TAX ACT 1961. SINCE THERE WAS AMBIGUITY AND NO CLEAR DIRECTIONS THERE W AS DELAY. NOW WITH THE COURTS AND ITAT HAVE IN YEAR 2018 TAKEN A CLEAR STA ND ON THE ABOVE SAID MATTER THE PETITIONER FELT THAT THE APPEAL CAN BE F ILED NOW. HENCE THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. SINCE THE DELAY I S DUE TO THE JUDICIAL PROCESS THE PETITIONER ONCE AGAIN HUMBLY REQUEST TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CONSIDER THIS FACT AND CON DONE THE DELAY AND ALLOW THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DE LAY WAS NOT EXPCONFIRMING THAT THE MONEYS RECEIVED BY THE APPE LLANT ON SURRENDER OF MEMBERSHIP OF THE MADRAS STOCK EXCHANGE WAS ASSESSA BLE AS CAPITAL GAINS.' HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I S OF THE VIEW THAT THE ABOVE EXPLANATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONDONE THE DELAY. B). IN RESPECT OF THE IDENTICAL ISSUE, THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - BANGALORE - IN THE CASE OF DR C FERNANDE S CO- OPERATIVE ... VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... ON 17 JANUARY, 2019 HELD THAT 6.0 CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEALS BEFORE C IT(A) 6.1 ON THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE ON HAND, IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE, UPHELD AND FOLLOWED IN A CATENA OF DECIS IONS THAT THE EXPRESSION 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE' OUGHT TO BE INTERPRETED IN A MAN NER WHICH SUBSERVES AND ADVANCES THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. A CA SE WITH ARGUABLE / FAVOURABLE POINTS / CONTENTIONS ON MERITS SHOULD NO T BE SHUT OUT ON THE PRESUMPTION OF LIMITATION, LEADING TO SUCH A CASE B EING THROWN OUT AT THE THRESHOLD ITSELF IN LIMINE. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST KATIJI AND OTHERS (1987) 1 67 ITR 471 (SC), WHILE LAYING DOWN THE PRINCIPLES FOR CONSIDERING MA TTERS OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEALS, HAS STATED THAT SUBSTANTIA L JUSTICE SHOULD PREVAIL OVER TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS. CONSIDERING THE AFOR ESAID PRINCIPLES LAID 3 ITA NOS.2432 TO 2442/CHNY/2019 DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT, THE FACTS AND PECUL IAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ON HAND, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE NINE APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A}. 6.2 IN THIS REGARD, WE HAVE PERUSED THE JUDICIAL PR ONOUNCEMENTS CITED BY THE LEARNED DR FOR REVENUE AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THEY ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND ARE NOT DIRECTLY APPLI CABLE TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE' THEREFORE AS PER THE ABOVE STATED DECISION OF THE H ON'BLE ITAT BANGALORE, THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE ALLOWED THIS APPEAL. C) APART FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS, DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE PETIT IONER HAD APPEARED AND EXPLAINED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL D UE TO THE FLOOD IN THE YEAR OF 2015, AND VARDHA CYCLONE, THE ENTIRE OFFICE OF THE PETITIONER HAD BEEN AFFECTED, ALL THE FILES ARE DAMAGED. SINCE THE WATER STAYED IN THESE AREAS FOR A LONG TIME, THE PHYSICAL IMPACT OF THE F LOOD WAS HIGHER IN THESE AREAS. HOWEVER THAT GROUND WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT FOR THE F INANCIAL YEAR 2012- 13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED TDS QUARTERLY RETURNS IN FORM 24Q BEYOND DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSESSED TDS QUARTERLY RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 200A AND LEVIED LA TE FILING FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT FOR THE DELAY IN FI LING THE SAID STATEMENTS FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE ASSES SEE HAS CHALLENGED THE LEVY OF LATE FILING FEE UNDER SE CTION 234E BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), BUT SUCH APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BEYOND DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH REASONS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND 4 ITA NOS.2432 TO 2442/CHNY/2019 REQUESTED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING APPEALS TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED ON MERITS REGARDING LEVY OF LATE FILING FEE UNDER SECTIO N 234E OF THE ACT IS NOW COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VARIOUS DECISIONS, AS PER WHICH THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE ACT TO L EVY LATE FILING FEE BEFORE INSERTION OF SECTION 200A BY FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F 01.06.2015. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPE ALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ADDUCE ANY REASONS WHICH COMES UNDER REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CO NDONING DELAY IN FILING APPEALS BUT MERELY STATED THAT THE ISSUE ON MERITS IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . THE LEARNED CIT (A) FURTHER STATED THAT UNLESS THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE RE ASONS FOR NOT FILING APPEALS WITHIN TIME, THE DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONE D MERELY ON THE GROUND THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE. WHILE DOING SO, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF KRISHNA DEVELOPERS VS. DCIT (2019) 102 TAXMANN.COM 51(MUM). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED COUNSELS FOR BOTH SIDES AN D PERUSED MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD ALONG WITH THE ORDER O F LEARNED CIT(A). 5 ITA NOS.2432 TO 2442/CHNY/2019 WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE A PPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILIN G APPEALS, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR D ELAY IN FILING SUCH APPEALS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSE SSEE HAD FILED APPEALS BEYOND DUE DATE FOR THE REASON THAT AT THE TIME OF INTRODUCING SECTION 234E BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015, THERE WAS AN AMBIGUITY AND NO CLEAR DIRECTIONS REGARDING LEVY O F LATE FILING FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT FOR BELATED FILING O F TDS RETURNS. HOWEVER, IN THE YEAR 2018 VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND TRIBUNALS HAVE TAKEN A CLEAR STAND AND HELD THAT AMENDMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2015 IS HELD TO BE HAVING PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND HENCE NO LATE FEE CAN BE CHARGED U/S.234E OF THE ACT, WHILE PROCESSING TDS RETURNS FILED PRIOR TO 01.06.2015. BASED ON SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENTS OF VARIOU S COURTS AND TRIBUNALS, THE ASSESSEE FELT THAT APPEAL CAN BE FIL ED AGAINST INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVYING LATE FEE U/S.234E OF THE ACT. WE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ABOVE EXPLANATION BEFORE THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON TO DISCARD THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BELATED FILING OF APPEALS BUT SIMPLY DISMISSED TH E APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT BRING ANY 6 ITA NOS.2432 TO 2442/CHNY/2019 MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT IT HAD TAKEN A LL POSSIBLE STEPS TO FILE APPEALS WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME OR WITHIN RE ASONABLE PERIOD. NO DOUBT, IT IS DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE APPEAL WI THIN DUE DATE. IN CASE, THE APPEAL IS NOT FILED WITHIN DUE DATE PRESC RIBED UNDER THE ACT, THEN IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE SUFFICIEN T REASONS WHICH PREVENTED FROM FILING OF APPEAL WITHIN DUE DATE , BUT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE SHALL COME WITHIN THE EXPRESS ION SUFFICIENT CAUSE. VARIOUS COURTS AND TRIBUNALS HAVE EXPLAINED THE TERM SUFFICIENT CAUSE. AS PER THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE A CASE THAT ARGUABLE /FAVORABLE POINTS / CONTENTION ON MERITS SHOULD NOT BE SHUT OUT ON THE PRESUMPTION OF LIMITATION, LEADING TO SUCH A CASE B EING THROWN OUT AT THE THRESHOLD ITSELF IN LIMINE. THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS.MST KATIJI AND OTHERS (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) WHILE LAYING DOWN PRINCIPLE S FOR CONSIDERING MATTERS OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FI LING APPEALS HAVE STATED THAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE SHOULD PREVAIL O VER TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS. THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH IN THE CA SE OF DR.C.FERNANDES CO-OPERATIVE VS. DCIT(SUPRA) HELD T HAT SUFFICIENT CAUSE OUGHT TO BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER WHICH S UBSERVES AND ADVANCES CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. IN THIS CA SE, ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSES SEE FOR NOT FILING 7 ITA NOS.2432 TO 2442/CHNY/2019 THE APPEALS WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER THE ACT COMES UNDER THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND HENCE, WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING APPEALS. THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING APPEALS AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) T O DECIDE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ON MERITS. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH OCTOBER, 2020 SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V.DURGA RAO) ( G.MANJUNATHA ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 26 TH OCTOBER, 2020 DS *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 2 /DR 6. /GF .