M/S. THIRUMURUGAN PLASTICS P. LTD., THIRUMAZHISAI V. ACIT, CPC, GHAZIABAD

ITA 2983/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6831 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay; TDS
• Section: 200A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . , , BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. I.T.A. NOS. 2969 TO 2987/CHNY/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14 TO 2015-16 M/S. THIRUMURUGAN PLASTICS P. LTD., NO. 188, 189, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THRIUMAZHISAI 600 124. [PAN: AAACT 9058L] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, GHAZIABAD. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) ' ( / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE +,' ( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. AR V SREENIVASAN, JCIT ( /DATE OF HEARING : 17.12.2019 ( /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.12.2019 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ABOVE 19 APPEALS AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 17, CHENNAI IN ITA NOS. 498 TO 516/18-19 DATED 25.09.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, RESPECTIVELY. :-2-: ITA NOS. 2969 TO 2987/CHNY/2019 2. M/S. THIRUMURUGAN PLASTICS PVT. LTD., THE ASSES SEE, FILED 19 APPEALS ON 18/19.03.2019, BELATEDLY, VARYING FROM 807 DAYS DELAY TO 1567 DAYS OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS, AGAINST THE ORDERS PA SSED BY THE CPC, BANGALORE U/S. 200A FOR VARIOUS QUARTERS IN THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 ON VARIOUS DATES IN AUGUST, 2016, DECEMBER, 2014 & DECEMBER, 2016. THE MD OF THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AF FIDAVIT FOR EACH OF THE APPEAL PLEADING, INTER-ALIA, THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDE RS WERE RECEIVED ELECTRONICALLY AND THE IMPACT OF THE SAID ORDER WAS NOT COMMUNICATED FROM THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION WITH IN THE LIMITATION PERIOD WHICH RESULTED IN THE DELAY IN FILING THESE APPEALS , THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONVERSANT AS WELL AS THERE WERE PROBLEMS IN THE FA MILY AS WELL AS BUSINESS SIDE. WHEN THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 04.03.2019 WAS RECEIVED MANUALLY, THE ISSUE WAS BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE BY THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT AND THE MISTAKE OF NOT CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS WAS ADDRESSED IMMEDIATELY BY FILING THE APPEALS. THEREFORE, HE PLEADED THAT T HE DELAY IN FILING EACH OF THESE APPEALS BE CONDONED AND DECIDE THEM ON THE ME RITS AND RENDER JUSTICE. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED ALL THE A PPEALS, HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF I TS REASONS. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE F ILED THESE 19 APPEALS. 3. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE IMPUGNED APPEALS WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE AS SESSEE AND WITHOUT :-3-: ITA NOS. 2969 TO 2987/CHNY/2019 ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION, ON TECH NICAL GROUND, WHICH IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNTENABLE. INVITING OUR ATTE NTION TO THE REASON CITED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE, INTER-ALIA, EXPLAINED THAT HOW IT WAS UNAWARE OF THE CHANGE FROM THE CONV ENTIONAL SYSTEM OF SERVICE TO E-SYSTEM OF SERVICE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDE RS AND WHEN THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 04.03.2019 WAS MANUALLY RECEI VED, IT CAME TO KNOW THE ISSUES AND IMMEDIATELY ASSESSEE TOOK STEPS IN F ILING THESE APPEALS AND THEREFORE SOUGHT CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE SE APPEALS AND PRAYED THE LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THEM ON MERIT AND RENDER JU STICE. THOUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS WERE PASSED AND ELECTRONICALLY SERV ED FROM 2014 ONWARDS, THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RE CORD THAT IT TOOK STEPS TO COLLECT ANY OF THE IMPUGNED DEMAND BEFORE 04.03.2019 AND TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS / DEMANDS. THE LD.AR RELYING ON THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE C ASE OF SENIOR BHOSALE ESTATE (HUF) VS. ACIT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6671 66 76 OF 2010 WITH 6677- 6690 OF 2010 DATED 07.11.2019, AND ITAT DECISIONS I N THE CASE OF M/S. MALLUR SIDDESWARA MILLS PVT. LTD., VS DCIT IN ITA N OS. 2889, 2890 & 2891/CHNY/2018 DATED 03.04.2019 AND M/S. BHARATHI R AJAA HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD., VS ACIT IN ITA NOS. 2540 TO 2576/CHNY/2019 DATED 05.12.2019, PRAYED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING E ACH OF THE ABOVE APPEALS BE CONDONED AND THEY MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS AND DUE JUSTICE BE RENDERED TO THE ASSESSEE. :-4-: ITA NOS. 2969 TO 2987/CHNY/2019 4. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF T HE LD.CIT(A) AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. ALFA PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS P. LTD., VS. DEPUTY C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9(1), IN ITA (L) NO.681 OF 2018 DATED 13.07.201 8. THE LD. DR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 10 OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.3/2 013 (F.NO.142/39/2012 SO[TPL] ) DT. 15.01.2013 ISSUED BY CBDT ON CENTRALI ZED PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TDS, 2013, WHICH IS EXTRACTED AS UNDE R:- SERVICE OF NOTICE OR COMMUNICATION 10. (1) THE SERVICE OF A NOTICE OR ORDER OR INTIMATION OR ANY OTHER COMMUNICATION BY THE CELL MAY BE MADE BY DELIVERING OR TRANSMITTING A COPY THEREOF TO THE DEDUCTOR,- (A) BY ELECTRONIC MAIL; OR (B) BY PLACING SUCH COPY IN THE REGISTERED ELECTRON IC ACCOUNT OF THE DEDUCTOR ON THE PORTAL OF THE CELL; OR (C) BY ANY MODE MENTIONED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SEC TION 282 OF THE ACT. (2) THE DATE OF POSTING OF ANY COMMUNICATION UNDER SUB-PARAGRAPH (1) IN THE ELECTRONIC MAIL OR ELECTRONIC ACCOUNT OF THE DE DUCTOR IN THE PORTAL OF THE CELL SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE DATE OF SERVICE OF S UCH COMMUNICATION. (3) THE INTIMATION, ORDERS AND NOTICES SHALL BE COM PUTER GENERATED AND NEED NOT CARRY PHYSICAL SIGNATURE OF THE PERSON ISS UING IT. RELYING ON THE ABOVE, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE DATE ON WHICH A COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER(S)WAS/ WERE TRANSMITTED TO TH E DEDUCTOR (THE ASSESSEE) , IT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE DATE OF SE RVICE OF SUCH COMMUNICATION AND ACCORDINGLY, THE LD DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A). :-5-: ITA NOS. 2969 TO 2987/CHNY/2019 5. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THEM CAREFULLY. IN THESE APPEALS, THE MD OF THE ASSESSEE PLEADED TH AT THE IMPUGNED ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS WERE NOT BROUGHT TO THE N OTICE OF THE ASSESSEE, AND HE HIMSELF WAS NOT CONVERSANT AS WELL AS THERE WERE PROBLEMS IN THE FAMILY AS WELL AS IN THE BUSINESS SIDE AT THE SAID POINT OF TIME. WHEN THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 04.03.2019 WAS RECEIVED, MANU ALLY, THE ISSUES WERE BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE AND HE IMMEDIATELY TOOK STEPS TO FILE THE ABOVE APPEALS, WHICH CAUSED THE DELAY IN FILING EACH OF T HESE APPEALS, WHICH IS NOT DELIBERATE BUT BONAFIDE AND BEYOND HIS CONTROL AND THEREFORE, HE SOUGHT THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THESE APPEALS. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT THOUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS WERE P ASSED FROM DECEMBER 2014 TO DECEMBER 2016, TILL THE RECOVERY NOTICE SER VED, MANUALLY ON 04.03.2019, THE REVENUE HAD NOT SENT ANY OTHER COMM UNICATION IN RESPECT OF ANY OF THE DEMAND RAISED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. THEREFORE, IT IS PLEADED THAT THE REASON CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE T OWARDS THE DELAY IN FILING THESE APPEALS HAVE SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE AND HENCE, IT WAS PRAYED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING EACH OF THESE APPEALS. WE FIND THAT THE REASON CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE DE LAY IN FILING THE IMPUGNED APPEALS APPEARS REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, SUPRA, AND HEN CE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING EACH OF THESE APPEALS AND REMIT THE SE APPEALS BACK TO THE LD. :-6-: ITA NOS. 2969 TO 2987/CHNY/2019 CIT(A) FOR DECIDING EACH OF THEM ON MERITS AFTER AF FORDING EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. FURTHER, THOUGH, THE REVENUE CLAIMED TO HAVE SER VED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ELECTRONICALLY, THE ASSESSEE PLEADS THAT THE Y WERE NOT BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE AND THE REVENUE HAS NOT SENT ANY FURTHER COM MUNICATION TILL THE DATE OF RECOVERY NOTICE SERVED ON 04.03.2019 MANUAL LY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNAWARE OF SUCH ORDERS. WHEN THERE IS A CHANGE FROM ONE SYSTEM, SAY THE MANUAL SYSTEM TO THE OTHER SYSTEM, SAY THE ELECTRONIC SYSTEM , APART FROM RELYING THE RULES AND REGULATIO NS, THE REVENUE AS AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ACT MUST ALSO GUIDE THE ASSESS EES, IN ENABLING THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE SYSTEMIC CHANGES IN A REASONABLE MA NNER. ATLEAST IN THOSE CASES, LIKE THIS CASE, WHERE THE DEMAND MADE ON THE ASSESSEE IS PENDING FOR LONG TIME AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RESPONDED, T HE REVENUE SHOULD ALSO HAVE USED OTHER MODE OF COMMUNICATION, MENTIONED IN SUB-SECTION (1) TO SECTION 282 OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ANY SUCH COMMUNICATION WITH THE ASSESSEE. CO NSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REASONS CANVASS ED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE DELAY IN FILING THE IMPUGNED APPEALS AP PEARS REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT ON THIS COUNT ALSO AND HENCE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING EACH OF THESE APPEALS AND REMIT THESE APPEALS BACK TO TH E LD.CIT(A) FOR DECIDING EACH OF THEM ON MERITS AFTER AFFORDING EFFECTIVE OP PORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. :-7-: ITA NOS. 2969 TO 2987/CHNY/2019 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, 27 TH DECEMBER, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ' ) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) $% /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) % /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 1 /DATED: 27 TH DECEMBER, 2019 JPV (+3454 /COPY TO: 1. ' / APPELLANT 2. +,' /RESPONDENT 3. 6 ) ( /CIT(A) 4. 6 /CIT 5. 4+ /DR 6. 9 /GF