SRI ARUMUGAM LAKSHMANAN, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CPC, GHAZIABAD

ITA 2872/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1212 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS VIJAYA PRABHA JCITD R
• Assessee Lawyers: ARJUNRAJC A
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 234E; 200A; 201

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI , , BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & S HRI S.JAYARAMAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.2865 TO 2884 /CHNY/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2013-14(24Q-Q2), 2013-14(24Q-Q3), 2013-14(26Q- Q2), 2013-14(26Q-Q3), 2014-15(26Q-Q1), 2014-15(2 6Q- Q2), 2014-15(26Q-Q3), 2014-15(26Q-Q4), 2014-15(24Q- Q1), 2014-15(24Q-Q3), 2014-15(24Q-Q2), 2015-16(24Q- Q1), 2015-16(24Q-Q4), 2015-16(24Q-Q2), 2015-16(24Q-Q3 ), 2015-16(24Q-Q4), 2015-16(26Q-Q1), 2015-16(26Q-Q2), 2015-16(26Q-Q3), 2015-16(26Q-Q4), SRI ARUMUGAM LAKSHMANAN , NO.40(OLD NO.23),KAMDAR NAGAR, FIRST MAIN ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 034. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL(CPC) AAYAKAR BHAWAN,VAISHALI, SECTOR-3,GHAZIABAD. 201 010. [PAN AABPL 7288 C ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.ARJUNRAJ,C.A /RESPONDENT BY : MRS.VIJAYAPRABHA,JCIT,D.R !' / DATE OF HEARING : 27 - 05 - 20 20 #$%& !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 - 05 - 20 20 ! / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE 20 APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X ITA NOS.2865 TO 2884/CHNY/2019 :- 2 -: (APPEALS)-17, CHENNAI IN APPEAL NOS.475 TO 484, 486 TO 495 /18-19, DATED 25.09.2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14(24Q-Q2), 2013-14(24Q-Q3), 2013-14(26Q-Q2), 2013-14 (26Q-Q3), 2014-15(26Q-Q1), 2014-15( 26Q- Q2), 2014-15(26Q-Q3), 2014-15(26Q-Q4), 2014-15(2 4Q- Q1), 2014-15(24Q-Q3), 2014-15(24Q-Q2), 2015-16(24 Q- Q1), 2015-16(24Q-Q4), 2015-16(24Q-Q2), 2015-16( 24Q- Q3), 2015-16(24Q-Q4),2015-16(26Q-Q1),2015-16(26Q- Q2),2015-16(26Q-Q3), 2015-16(26Q-Q4). 2. AS THE FACTS AND ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THE SE 20 APPEALS OF ASSESSEE, THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND AR E DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 3. MR.ARJUNRAJ, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE, AND MRS.VIJAYAPRABHA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED A.R. THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS AND FILING ELECTRONICALLY TDS RETURN. THE ORDERS HAD BEEN PASSED IN LEVYING LATE FILING FEE UNDER SECTIO N 234E OF THE ACT AND DEMANDS WERE RAISED UNDER SECTIONS 200A AND 154 OF THE ACT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BELATEDLY BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), AND THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN FILING OF THESE APPEALS VARYING FROM 223 DAYS TO MAXIMUM OF 9 27 DAYS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE REASON FOR THE DELAY IN ITA NOS.2865 TO 2884/CHNY/2019 :- 3 -: FILING OF THESE APPEALS WAS THAT THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO WAS HANDLING THE INCOME TAX MATTERS F OR BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND COMPANY IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR, AND WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR CO-ORDINATING WITH CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FIRM, HAD BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH THE WORK OF ATTENDING THE E-ORDERS/NOTICES RECEIVED. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THERE WAS A DISPUTE BETWEEN TH E SAID ACCOUNTANT AND THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPANY, IN WH ICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS. AS A CONSEQ UENCE TO THE VARIOUS PROBLEMS HAD BEEN CAUSED, THE SAID ACCO UNTANT HAD NOT BROUGHT TO THE ASSESSEES KNOWLEDGE THE NOT ICES ISSUED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE TO THE ATTENTION OF T HE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FIRM AND HAD SUBSEQUENTLY LEFT THE SERVI CES OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMPANY IN MARCH, 2017. I T WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT T HE REASONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE ASSESSE ES APPEALS BY NOT CONDONING THE DELAY. IT WAS A SUBMIS SION THAT ON MERITS THE ISSUE WAS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE A S HELD IN VARIOUS CASES BY THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT THE LEVY UNDER SECTION 234E PRIOR TO 01.06.2005 WAS INVALID AS THE RE WAS NO ENABLING PROVISION IN SECTION 200A VIS--VIS CLAUSE (1)(C) OF 234E FOR THE LEVY OF SUCH FEE WHILE PROCESSING THE STATEMENT ITA NOS.2865 TO 2884/CHNY/2019 :- 4 -: OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. IT WAS A PRAYER THAT TH E DELAY IN FILING OF THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) M AY BE CONDONED AND THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL RESTORED TO T HE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. IT W AS A FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DE LAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF M/S.THIRUMURUGAN PLASTICS P. LTD., IN I.T.A. NO. NO S.2969 TO 2987/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 TO 2015 -16 HAD BEEN CONDONED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 27.12.2019 AND THE ISSUES RESTORED TO THE FILE OF L EARNED CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 5. IN REPLY, THE LD. D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE CONDON ATION OF DELAY IS AN ISSUE ON FACTS AND IGNORANCE OF PROC EDURE IN RESPECT OF E-FILING AND E-RECEIPT OF NOTICES IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE REASON. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT THE D ELAY IN FILING OF THESE APPEALS HAD BEEN RIGHTLY CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHEN DISMISSING THE APPEALS OF THE A SSESSEE. IT WAS A PRAYER THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A ) WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS VERY MUCH KNO WN IN LAW THAT WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS PITTED AGAINST TEC HNICALITIES, ITA NOS.2865 TO 2884/CHNY/2019 :- 5 -: THEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE MUST PREVAIL. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF THE COMPANY, M/S.THIRUMURUGAN PLASTICS P. LTD., REF ERRED TO SUPRA IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR, ALSO TH ERE WAS DELAY IN FILING OF THESE APPEALS ON IDENTICAL GROUN DS, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASES HAS HELD AT PARA-6 OF ITS ORDER AS FOLLOWS:- 6. FURTHER, THOUGH, THE REVENUE CLAIMED TO HAVE SE RVED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ELECTRONICALLY, THE ASSESSEE PLEADS THAT THEY WERE NOT BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE AND THE REVENUE HAS NOT SENT ANY FURTHER COMMUNICATION TILL THE DATE OF RECOVERY NOT ICE SERVED ON 04.03.2019, MANUALLY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS U NAWARE OF SUCH ORDERS. WHEN THERE IS A CHANGE FROM ONE SYSTEM , SAY THE MANUAL SYSTEM TO THE OTHER SYSTEM, SAY THE ELECTRON IC SYSTEM , APART FROM RELYING THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, THE R EVENUE AS AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ACT MUST ALSO GUIDE THE ASSESS EES, IN ENABLING THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE SYSTEMIC CHANGES I N A REASONABLE MANNER. ATLEAST IN THOSE CASES, LIKE THI S CASE, WHERE THE DEMAND MADE ON THE ASSESSEE IS PENDING FOR LONG TIME AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RESPONDED, THE REVENUE SHOULD ALSO HAVE USED OTHER MODE OF COMMUNICATION, MENTIONED IN SUB- SECTION (1) TO SECTION 282 OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, THE RE VENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ANY SUCH COMMUNICATION WITH T HE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REASONS CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSE E TOWARDS THE DELAY IN FILING THE IMPUGNED APPEALS APPEARS RE ASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT ON THIS COUNT ALSO AND HENCE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING EACH OF THESE APPEALS AND REMIT THESE APPEAL S BACK TO THE LD.CIT(A) FOR DECIDING EACH OF THEM ON MERITS AFTER AFFORDING EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.2865 TO 2884/CHNY/2019 :- 6 -: AFTER CONDONING THE DELAY, THE ISSUES HAD BEEN REST ORED TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. AS THE FACTS ARE ALSO IDENTICAL IN THE PRESENT CASES OF APPEALS, WE FIND NO REASON TO TAKE ANY DIFFERENT STAND FROM THAT TAKEN BY THIS CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE M/S.THIRUMURUGAN PLASTICS P. LTD ., REFERRED TO SUPRA. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND ON I DENTICAL REASONS, THE DELAY IN FILING OF ALL THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASES ALSO BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) STAND CONDONED AND THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION ON M ERITS. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THESE 20 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSI ON OF HEARING ON 27 TH MAY, 2020, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) ' # /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) $ # / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' / CHENNAI ( / DATED: 27 TH MAY, 2020. K S SUNDARAM ) !*+ , +%! / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. -! () / CIT(A) 5. +01 !23 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. -! / CIT 6. 145 6 / GF