M/s C Centric Solutions Pvt Ltd , Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax TDS,CPC, Ghaziabad

ITA 3074/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1385 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Condonation of delay; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 154; 206AA; 200A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND S MT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT A NO S . 3072 TO 3080 /BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2015-16, 2015-16, 2015-16, 2016 -17, 2013-14, 2011-12, 2016 - 17, 2016 - 17 & 2016 - 17 M/S. C CENTRIC SOLUTIONS P. LTD. (FORMERLY CDC CRM SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.), NO.113, SOBHA SUNFLOWER, BASAVANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 037. PAN: AADCC 1886C VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS-CPC, GHAZIABAD. APP ELLANT RESPONDENT A PP L IC ANT B Y : SHRI PRASHANTH G.S. CA RESP ONDENT BY : SHRI H. ANANDA, ADDL.C IT(DR)(ITAT), BENGALURU. DATE OF HEARING : 0 6 . 0 6 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 9 O R D E R PER BENCH ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND A RE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE, BUT IDENTICAL ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS)- 3, BENGALURU. AS THE ISSUES THAT ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THESE AP PEALS ARE COMMON, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND AR E DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAG ED IN THE BUSINESS OF DESIGN AND DEVELOPING, MARKETING & SUPPORTING VA RIOUS SERVICES INCLUDING PROVIDING PROGRAMMING, CONVERSIONS, ELECT RONIC DATA, SOFTWARE ITA NOS. 3072 TO 3080/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 5 DEVELOPMENT, SALES & MARKETING, SUPPORTING & MAINTE NANCE AND OTHER TECHNICAL SERVICES TO NEW AND ESTABLISHED INFORMATI ON TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES, NETWORK SERVICE PROVIDERS, ETC. THE ASS ESSEE HAS AVAILED SERVICES FROM M/S. CDC SOFTWARE SINGAPORE PTE LTD., SINGAPORE AND M/S. PIVOTAL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., IRELAND. IT MADE P AYMENT FOR THESE SERVICES WHICH WERE IN THE NATURE OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERV ICES. TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE @ 10%. 3. ORDERS U/S. 200A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [T HE ACT] WERE PASSED BY THE TDS-CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL (CPC) OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-1 2, 2013-14, 2015- 16 & 2016-17 HOLDING THAT TDS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DE DUCTED @ 20% AS PER SECTION 195(1) R.W.S. 206AA OF THE ACT, SINCE T HE DEDUCTEE DID NOT HAVE A PAN AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGL Y, A DEMAND WAS RAISED FOR SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AND INTEREST WAS LEVIED THEREON. 4. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THESE ORDERS PASSED U/ S. 200A OF THE ACT BY THE TDS-CPC WERE NEVER SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE PH YSICALLY OR OTHERWISE AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF T HE FACT THAT SUCH ORDERS WERE PASSED IN ITS CASE. HE STATES THAT THE RE WAS NO COMMUNICATION WHATSOEVER EVEN THROUGH ELECTRONIC ME DIA ON THE ISSUE OF PASSING OF ORDERS MENTIONED ABOVE. THE ASSESSEE SU BMITS THAT ONLY WHEN THE DEMANDS WERE SOUGHT TO BE COLLECTED BY THE REVE NUE, THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW OF THESE ORDERS. 5. ON COMING TO KNOW OF THESE DEMANDS, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THESE APPEALS BY HOLDING AS FOLLOWS:- ITA NOS. 3072 TO 3080/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 5 (A) THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDERS PASSED U/ S. 200A, BUT A COPY OF THE SAME WAS NOT UPLOADED BY THE ASSESSEE A LONG WITH FORM 35; (B) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT WAS NOT HAVING AN Y COPY OF THE INTIMATION PASSED U/S. 206AA OF THE ACT WHICH CANNO T NOT BE ACCEPTED; (C) THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT WHICH ALLOWS ORDERS PASSED UNDER DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO BE CHALLEN GED BY FILING OF CONSOLIDATED APPEALS. HENCE AN ORDER PAS SED U/S. 154 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS APPEAL; AND (D) THE ASSESSEE HAS NO SUFFICIENT OR GOOD REASON FOR FILING OF THE APPEAL BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. HENCE THER E IS NO REASON FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN THE CASE. DELAY I S NOT CONDONED AND APPEAL DISMISSED. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT NO ORDERS U/S. 200A WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE TILL DA TE AND HENCE THE QUESTION OF FILING OF THE APPEAL WITH DELAY AND SEE KING CONDONATION OF DELAY DOES NOT ARISE. IT WAS SUBMITTED, ON COMING TO KNO W OF SUCH ORDERS WHICH HAVE BEEN UPLOADED IN THE PORTAL OF INCOME TAX DEPA RTMENT BY THE TDS- CPC, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE APPEALS IMMEDIATELY AND HENCE THERE IS NO DELAY. HE PLEADED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE SENT BA CK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER ON MERITS, AS NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES ITA NOS. 3072 TO 3080/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 5 HAVE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND LOOKE D INTO THE MATTER ON MERITS. 7. THE LD. DR, MR. H. ANANDA, ON THE OTHER HAND, TH OUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORE D TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 8. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BY T HE ASSESSEE, AS NO ORDER U/S. 200A OF THE ACT FOR ALL THESE YEARS, HAS BEEN PHYSICALLY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE TILL DATE. THESE ORDERS HAVE NOT ALSO BEE N SERVED ELECTRONICALLY. HENCE THE QUESTION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS D OES NOT ARISE. THE APPEALS, IN OUR VIEW, HAVE BEEN FILED WITHIN THE PE RIOD OF LIMITATION. 9. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) COULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED TH E APPEALS FOR THE REASON THAT ORDER U/S. 200A WAS NOT UPLOADED ALONG WITH FORM 35. DEFECTS, IF ANY, COULD HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED BY GIVING NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN LIBERTY TO DOWNLOAD THESE ORDERS FROM THE PORTAL OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND FILE THE SAME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ELECTRONICALLY OR OTHERWISE. THE THIRD GROUND ON W HICH THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS THAT SEPARATE AP PEALS WERE NOT FILED AGAINST EACH ORDER. THIS DEFECT SHOULD HAVE ALSO BE EN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE AND AN OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO RECTIFY THE SAME. LIBERTY IS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE SEPARATE APPEALS AS REQUIRED BY LAW. 10. THE LD. CIT(A) NOR ANY AUTHORITY HAD CONSIDERED ALL THESE ISSUES ON MERITS AND DISPOSED OF THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. ONLY THE COMPUTER HAS PROCESSED THE ORDERS. UNDER THE CIRCU MSTANCES, IN OUR VIEW, IT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF ALL THE ORDERS U/S. 200A OF THE ACT ARE SET ASIDE AND MATTER RESTORED TO THE FILE OF TH E AO, TO ISSUE NOTICE TO THE ITA NOS. 3072 TO 3080/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 5 ASSESSEE, CONSIDER ITS OBJECTIONS ON THE MATTER AND THEREAFTER DISPOSE OF THE CASES ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE ALL THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED U/S. 200A OF THE ACT FOR ALL THESE YEARS AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 7 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019. SD/- SD/- ( BEENA PILLAI ) ( J. SUDH AKAR REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AC COUN TANT M EMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 7 TH JUNE, 2019. / D ESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1 . APP EL L ANT 2. RESP ONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FI LE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.