M/S W S INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD, CHENNAI V. ACIT CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 2949/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1685 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNDERARAJANADDL
• Assessee Lawyers: B RAMAKRISHNANC A
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 234E; 200A; 201; 13; 22

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI , , BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & S HRI S.JAYARAMAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO S . 2935 TO 2941,2942 TO 2953 & 2954 TO 2956 /CHNY/20 19 AND ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15(24Q-Q3), 2014-15(24Q-Q4), 2014-15(26Q-Q2), 2014-15(26Q-Q3), 2014-15(26Q-Q4), 2014-15(27Q-Q4), 2014-15(27EQ-Q4), 2015-16(24Q-Q1), 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), 2015-16(27EQ-Q1), 2015-16(27EQ-Q2 ), 2015-16(27EQ-Q3), 2015-16(27EQ-Q4), 2016-17(24Q-Q1) , 2016-17(26Q-Q1), 2016-17(27EQ-Q1). M/S.W.S.INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., 108,MOUNT POONAMALLEE ROAD, CHENNAI 600 116. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC,TDS,GHAZIABAD. 201 010. UTTAR PRADESH [PAN AAACW 0572 E ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.B.RAMAKRISHNAN,C.A /RESPONDENT BY : MR.SUNDERARAJAN,ADDL. C.I.T D.R ! / DATE OF HEARING : 13 - 05 - 20 20 '#$% ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 - 05 - 20 20 ITA NOS.2935 TO 2956/CHNY/2019 WS INDUSTRIES :- 2 -: !' / O R D E R PER BENCH THESE 22 APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS)-17, CHENNAI IN APPEAL NOS.441 TO 452(A), 461 TO 466, 469,470,472/18-19, DATED 09.09.2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15(24Q-Q3), 2014-15(24Q-Q4), 2014-15(26Q-Q2), 2014-15(26Q-Q3), 2014-15(26Q-Q4), 2014-15(27Q-Q4), 2014-15(27EQ-Q4), 2015-16(24Q-Q1), 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), 2015-16(27EQ-Q1), 2015-16(27EQ-Q2) , 2015-16(27EQ-Q3), 2015-16(27EQ-Q4),2016-17(24Q-Q1), 2016-17(26Q-Q1), 2016-17(27EQ-Q1). 2. MR.B.RAMAKRISHNAN, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND MR.SUNDERARAJAN REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. AS THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THESE 22 APPEA LS OF ASSESSEE, THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NOS.2935 TO 2956/CHNY/2019 WS INDUSTRIES :- 3 -: 4 . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED A.R. THAT THESE APPEALS RELATED TO THE LEVY UNDER SECTION 234E OF T HE ACT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT ON MERITS THE ISSUE WAS IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS HELD IN VARIOUS CASES BY THE TRIBUN AL HOLDING THAT THE LEVY UNDER SECTION 234E PRIOR TO 01.06.200 5 WAS INVALID AS THERE WAS NO ENABLING PROVISION IN SECTI ON 200A VIS--VIS CLAUSE (1)(C) OF 234E FOR THE LEVY OF SUC H FEE WHILE PROCESSING THE STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. THE LD. A.R. RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENC H OF THE CHENNAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.PELICAN REALTY PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD., VS. DCIT, IN I.T.A. NOS.2252 TI 2255 /CHNY/2019 DATED 19.12.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2015- 16(Q1)(Q2)(Q3) & 2016-17(Q1). IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT AS THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS DELAYED, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISM ISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEALS BY NOT CONDONING THE DELAY. IT W AS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS UNDERGOING RE-STRUCTURING AND THAT THE FACTORY OF T HE ASSESSEE IS CLOSED ON ACCOUNT OF RE-STRUCTURING. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE REQUISITE TDS HAD BEEN PAID WITHIN THE DUE DATE AND ON ACCOUNT OF RE-STRUCTURING, THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE AS SESSEE ITA NOS.2935 TO 2956/CHNY/2019 WS INDUSTRIES :- 4 -: COMPANY HAD ON A PRESUMPTION THAT ALL THE REQUISITE HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH, HAD NOT TAKEN ANY FURTHER ACTION. I T WAS A SUBMISSION THAT IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE CPC INFORMED O F THE DELAY, THAT IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND FURTHER, THE ACCOUNTANT HAD NOT INTIMATED THE MANAGEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE ORDERS RECEIVED. IMMED IATELY WHEN THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW OF THE ORDERS, THE A PPEALS WERE FILED.. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS PITTED AGAINST TECHNICALITIE S, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT TECHNICAL ITIES SHOULD STEP BACK AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE SHOULD PRE VAIL. THE LD. A.R. PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MST.KATIJI (1987) 2 SC C 107. IT WAS A PRAYER THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL S BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) MAY BE CONDONED AND THE ISSUES IN TH E APPEAL RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ADJU DICATION ON MERITS. 5. IN REPLY, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN FILING OF THESE APPEALS VARYIN G FROM 312 DAYS TO MAXIMUM OF 1715 DAYS. THE LEARNED DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF TH E LEARNED CIT(A). ITA NOS.2935 TO 2956/CHNY/2019 WS INDUSTRIES :- 5 -: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. A PERUSAL OF THE DEC ISION IN THE CASE OF MST.KATIJI (1987) 2 SCC 107(SC) AS DECLARED BY THE APEX COURT SHOWS THAT HONBLE SUPREME HELD THAT: ORDINARILY A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LODGING AN APPEAL LATE. REFUSING TO CONDONE DELAY C AN RESULT IN A MERITORIOUS MATTER BEING THROWN OUT AT THE VERY THRESHOLD AND CAUSE OF JUSTICE BEING DEFEATED. AS AGAINST THIS WHEN DELAY IS CONDONED THE HIGHEST THA T CAN HAPPEN, IS THAT A CAUSE WOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES . THUS, CLEARLY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS ACCEPTE D THE PROPOSITION THAT WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS PITTED AGAINST TECHNICALITIES, SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE MUST PREVAIL. K EEPING THIS PRINCIPLE IN MIND, IF THE CAUSE OF THE DELAY IN FIL ING OF THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS VIEWED, IT BEC OMES CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIALLY REASONABLE CAUS E IN RESPECT OF THE DELAY IN FILING OF THESE APPEALS. CO NSEQUENTLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) REQUIRES TO BE CONDONED AND WE DO SO. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LE ARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN HIS FINDINGS ON MERITS, THE IS SUES IN ITA NOS.2935 TO 2956/CHNY/2019 WS INDUSTRIES :- 6 -: THESE APPEALS ON MERITS ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THESE 22 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSI ON OF HEARING ON 13TH MAY, 2020, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) # !$ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) % !$ / JUDICIAL MEMBER & / CHENNAI ' / DATED: 13 TH MAY, 2020. K S SUNDARAM ( ) *+ , +$ / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. ( ( - / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. +./ 01 / DR 3. ( ( - () / CIT(A) 6. /45 6 / GF