Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3275 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
07-11-2019
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
misc
Appeal Filed On
27-08-2019
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B BENCH : CHENNAI , . , [BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A. NOS.2443, 2444, 2445 & 2446 CHNY/2019 /ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14 (Q2), 2013-14 ( Q3), 2014-15 (Q4) AND 2014-15 (Q4). THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD, (AVADI BRANCH) NO.65, NEHRU BAZAR, OLD MARKET, AVADI, CHENNAI 600 054. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD. [PAN AABCT 0024D] ./ I.T.A. NOS.2447, 2448 & 2449/CHNY/2019 /ASSESSMENT YEARS:- 2014-15 (Q2), 2014-15 (Q2) AND 2013-14 (Q4). THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD, (CHENNAI 2- MOUNT ROAD BRANCH) NO.826, TARAPORE TOWERS, GROUND FLOOR, MOUNT ROAD, CHENNAI 600 002. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD. [PAN AABCT 0024D] ./ I.T.A. NOS.2450 & 2451/CHNY/2019 /ASSESSMENT YEARS:- 2013-14 (Q3) AND 2013-14 (Q4) THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD, (CHENNAI SERVICE BANK ) NO.826, TARAPORE TOWERS, GROUND FLOOR, MOUNT ROAD, CHENNAI 600 002. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD. [PAN AABCT 0024D] ITA NO2443 TO 2474 /2019 :- 2 -: ./ I.T.A. NO.2452/CHNY/2019 /ASSESSMENT YEARS:- 2013-14 (Q2), THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD, (GUINDY BRANCH) 28, LAWYER JAGANATHAN STREET, ALANDUR, GUINDY CHENNAI 600 032. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD. [PAN AABCT 0024D] ./ I.T.A. NOS.2453,2454, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, 246 2, 2463, 2464/CHNY/2019. /ASSESSMENT YEARS:- 2014-15 (Q1), 2014-15 (Q1), 20 13-14 (Q2), 2014-15 (Q2), 2013-14 (Q2), 2013-14 (Q3), 20 14-15 (Q4), 2013-14 (Q3), 2014-15 (Q3), 2013-14 (Q4), 2013-14 (Q3) AND 2014-15 (Q4). THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD, (PERAVALLUR BRANCH) NO.6, PAPER MILLS ROAD, PERAMBUR, CHENNAI 600 082. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD. [PAN AABCT 0024D] ./ I.T.A. NOS.2465, 2466 & 2467/CHNY/2019 /ASSESSMENT YEARS:- 2014-15 (Q2), 2014-15(Q2) AND 2014-15 (Q2) THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD, (ROYAPETTAH BRANCH) NO.18, V.S.S. BUILDING, 1 ST FLOOR, ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI 600 014. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD. [PAN AABCT 0024D] ITA NO2443 TO 2474 /2019 :- 3 -: ./ I.T.A. NOS.2468, 2469, 2470, 2471 & 2472/CHNY/2019 /ASSESSMENT YEARS:- 2014-15 (Q1), 2014-15 (Q1), 2015-16(Q3), 2015-16(Q3) AND 2014-15 (Q3) THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD, (THIRUPATTUR BRANCH) NO.38A, SUNDER LODGE BUILDING (GROUND FLOOR) KRISHNAGIRI ROAD, TIRUPPATTUR 635 601. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD. [PAN AABCT 0024D] ./ I.T.A. NOS.2473 CHNY/2019 /ASSESSMENT YEARS:- 2013-14(Q2) THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD, (TIRUVALLUR BRANCH) NO.157, TNHB, KAKKALLUR BYE PASS ROAD, TIRUVALLUR 602 001. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD. [PAN AABCT 0024D] ./ I.T.A. NOS.2474 CHNY/2019 /ASSESSMENT YEARS:- 2014-15(Q1) THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD, (WALAJAPET) PLOT NO. 12C PART, G.M.K. PLAZA, T.N.H.B, WALAJAPET 632 513. VELLORE VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD. [PAN AABCT 0024D] ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) !' #$ % & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. C. NARESH, C.A. '(#$ % & /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. J. PAVITRAN KUMAR, JCIT. ITA NO2443 TO 2474 /2019 :- 4 -: ) * % + /DATE OF HEARING : 06-11-2019 ,-./ % + /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-11-2019 / O R D E R PER BENCH THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST COMMON ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)-17, CHENNAI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 27.06.2019 FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AGAINST LEVY OF LATE FEES U/S.234E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. SINCE, THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND ISSUES ARE INVOLV ED IN THESE APPEALS, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE THE SAME VIDE THIS C OMMON ORDER. 3. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY THE FACT S RELEVANT TO THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.2443/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 (Q2) ARE STATED HEREIN. 4. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WHICH WAS CAUSED BY THE REASON OF THE TAXATION MATT ERS BEING HANDLED BY HEAD OFFICE AND NON-COMMUNICATION OF DEFAULTS BY THE BRANCHES TO THE HEAD OFFICE IN TIME. BRANCH WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT FILING OF APPEALS AGAINST INTIMATION RECEIVED AT BRANCHES AS THEY ARE NOT EXPERTS IN TAXATION MATTERS. ALSO THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE SECTION WAS UNDER QUESTION BEFORE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS. THE CIT( A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS NO WILFUL OR DELIBERATE R EASONS FOR THE APPELLANT IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL AND HENCE THE ID . CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY AND DECIDED THE APPEAL ON M ERITS. 2. THERE IS NO DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE IT AT. THIS FACT SHOWS THAT THERE IS PROMPT ACTION TAKEN AND THERE IS DUE DILIGENCE AND NO NEGLIGENCE. ITA NO2443 TO 2474 /2019 :- 5 -: 3. THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF A PPELLANT THAT NO LATE FILING FEES U/S 234E COULD BE LEVIED FOR THE S AID ASSESSMENT YEAR THROUGH INTIMATION U/S 200A, PRIOR TO ITS AMENDMENT VIDE FINANCE ACT 2015 WHICH WAS MADE EFFECTIVE ONLY FROM 01.06.2015, AS HELD BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS. 4. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS NO LOSS TO REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF THE DELAYED FILING OF THE RETURN SINCE THE TAX T HAT \AS DEDUCTED HAD BEEN REMITTED WITHIN THE DUE DATE AS PRESCRIBED UND ER THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF APPELLANT ALLOWED. 5. T HE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH DE LAY OF 1722 DAYS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY, HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 6. ADMITTEDLY, THERE IS DELAY OF 1722 DAYS IN FILI NG THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). A PETITION FOR CONDONATION O F DELAY BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WAS FILED STATING THAT THE DELAY HAD OCCURRE D BECAUSE OF IGNORANCE ON THE PART OF THE BRANCH MANAGER OF THE ASSESSEE BANK. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES WAS TRYING TO RECOVER THE MONEY FROM THE BRANCH, THE BRANCH MANAGER HAD CON TACTED THE HEAD OFFICE WHO IN TURN DIRECTED THE BRANCH MANAGE R TO FILE APPEAL AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THER E IS NO DELIBERATE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, DELAY HAD OCCURR ED BECAUSE OF IGNORANCE OF THE BRANCH MANAGER, PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. ITA NO2443 TO 2474 /2019 :- 6 -: MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS, (1987) 167 ITR 471, THE DELAY BE CONDONED. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT CONDONED THE DELAY AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 8. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, LATE FEES U/S.234E OF THE ACT W AS LEVIED EVEN IN RESPECT OF PERIOD BEFORE THE INSERTION OF PROVISION S OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT NO P ROVISION OF THE ACT HAS RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT UNLESS OR OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY MADE RETROSPECTIVELY APPLICABLE. THUS, IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE HAS ME RITORIOUS CASE. THE LD. CIT (A) SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY KEEPING IN VIEW THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI AND OTH ERS (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES WERE LAID DOWN RE LATING TO CONDONATION OF DELAY. 1. ORDINARILY, A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEF IT BY LODGING AN APPEAL LATE. 2. REFUSING TO CONDONE DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERITO RIOUS MATTER BEING THROWN OUT AT THE VERY THRESHOLD AND CAUSE OF JUSTICE BEING DEFEATED. AS AGAINST THIS, WHEN DELAY IS CONDONED, THE HIGHEST THAT CAN HAPPEN IS THAT A CAUSE WOULD BE DECIDED ON MERI TS AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES. 3. ' EVERY DAY'S DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED ' DOES NOT MEAN THAT A PEDANTIC APPROACH SHOULD BE MADE. WHY NOT EVERY HOU R'S DELAY, ITA NO2443 TO 2474 /2019 :- 7 -: EVERY SECOND'S DELAY? THE DOCTRINE MUST BE APPLIED IN A RATIONAL, COMMON SENSE AND PRAGMATIC MANNER. 4. WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERA TIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIC E DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED, FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON-DELIBERATE DE LAY. 5. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IS OCCASIONED DELIBERATELY, OR ON ACCOUNT OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE, OR ON ACCOUNT OF MALA FIDES. A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY RESORTING TO DELAY. IN FACT, HE RUNS A SERIOUS RISK. 6. IT MUST BE GRASPED THAT THE JUDICIARY IS RESPECT ED NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS POWER TO LEGALIZE INJUSTICE ON TECHN ICAL GROUNDS BUT BECAUSE IT IS CAPABLE OF REMOVING INJUSTICE AND IS EXPECTED TO DO SO. FURTHER, THE COURTS HAVE ALWAYS HELD THAT THE DELA Y IS A MATTER OF WHICH COULD BE CONDONED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE . THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SREENIVAS CHARITABLE TRUST VS. DCIT (2006) 280 ITR 357 HAD DEPRECIATED METICULOUS APPROACH IN CONSTRUING THE MEANING OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND LAW, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY. THEREFOR E WE DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADMIT THE APPEAL AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN APPEAL ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.2443/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 (Q2) IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE . I.T.A. NOS. 2444, 2445, 2446, 2447, 2448, 2449, 245 0, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2458, 2459, 246 0, 2461, ITA NO2443 TO 2474 /2019 :- 8 -: 2462, 2463, 2464, 2465, 2466, 2467, 2468, 2469, 247 0, 2471, 2472, 2473 AND 2474/CHNY/2019, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 (Q3), 2014-15 (Q4), 2014-15 (Q4), 2014-15 ( Q2), 2014-15 (Q2), 2013-14 (Q4), 2013-14 (Q3), 2013-14 ( Q4), 2013-14 (Q2), 2014-15 (Q1), 2014-15 (Q1), 2013-14 ( Q2), 2014-15 (Q2), 2013-14 (Q2), 2013-14 (Q3), 2014-15 (Q4), 2013-14 (Q3), 2014-15 (Q3), 2013-14 (Q4), 2013-14 ( Q3), 2014-15 (Q4), 2014-15 (Q2), 2014-15 (Q2), 2014-15 (Q2), 2014-15 (Q1), 2014-15 (Q1), 2015-16(Q3), 2015-16(Q 3), 2014-15 (Q3), 2013-14 (Q2) AND 2014-15 (Q1). 10. SINCE, THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE IDENTI CAL TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.2443/CHNY/2019, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 (Q2) FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED THEREIN, WE PARTLY ALLOW THE APPEALS FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE ON THE ABOVE LINES INDICATED IN APPEAL ITA NO.2443/CHNY/2019 SUPRA. HENCE, THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.2443 TO 2474/CHNY/2019 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 07 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' ! # . $ %& ) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ' /JUDICIAL MEMBER 0 )* / CHENNAI ( ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1) / DATED: 07 TH NOVEMBER, 2019. KV 2 % '+3 4' !5 4.+ / COPY TO: 1. !' #$ / APPELLANT 3. 6+ (!' ) / CIT(A) 5. 4 9: '+); / DR 2. '(#$ / RESPONDENT 4. 6+ / CIT 6. :< =* / GF ITA NO2443 TO 2474 /2019 :- 9 -:
