Pythos Technology Pvt Ltd, New Delhi V. ACIT - CPC, Ghaziabad

ITA 5677/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7354 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAKHI VIMAL SR DR
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 234E

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C, NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE, SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5675/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14) (24Q) (QTR-2) ITA NO.5676/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14) (24Q) (QTR-3) ITA NO.5677/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14) (24Q) (QTR-4) ITA NO.5678/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14) (26Q) (QTR-2) ITA NO.5679/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14) (26Q) (QTR-3) ITA NO.5680/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14) (26Q) (QTR-4) M/S PYTHHOS TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. E-4/3, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110057 PAN:AAFCP 5783P VS. ASST.CIT, CPC, GHAZIABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 2 ITA NOS.5675 TO 5680/DEL/2019 M/S. PYTHHOS TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. VS . ACIT-CPC APPELLANT BY SH. AMIT SHARMA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. RAKHI VIMAL, SR-DR DATE OF HEARING 28.08.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31.08.2020 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE ARE A BUNCH OF SIX APPEALS WHEREIN THE SOLE IS SUE UNDER CHALLENGE IS LEVY OF FEE U/S 234E OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) IN RESPECT OF DEL AY IN FILING THE QUARTERLY TDS STATEMENTS FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSME NT YEARS. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR HEARING AN D ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2.0 AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE (AR) APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE SIX APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) {CIT(A)} BY REFUSING TO CONDONE THE D ELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS RANGING FROM 430 DAYS TO 1540 DAYS BEFORE H IM. 3.0 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY RANGIN G FROM 430 TO 1540 DAYS IN THE FILLING OF THE APPEALS BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A) DUE TO 3 ITA NOS.5675 TO 5680/DEL/2019 M/S. PYTHHOS TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. VS . ACIT-CPC THE REASON THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE ADVOCATE ENGAGED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHO DID NOT COMPLETE THE WORK IN T IME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING OF TH E APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ENTIRELY OUT OF CONTROL OF THE A SSESSEE COMPANY. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED TH AT THIS EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN TO THE LD. CIT(A) BUT HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) ALSO S UBMITTED THAT SIMILAR DELAY HAD OCCURRED IN ASST. YEARS: 2014-15 & 2015-16 WHERE THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CONDONED THE DELAY BUT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, THE DELAY WAS NOT CONDONED IN RESPECT OF ALL THESE CAPTIONED APPEALS. 4.0 THE LD. AR, ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, AGREED TO RE- APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT ITS CASE ON MERITS, IF GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY. 5.0 THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR), PER CONTRA, REITERATED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) A ND VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED. 4 ITA NOS.5675 TO 5680/DEL/2019 M/S. PYTHHOS TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. VS . ACIT-CPC 6.0 HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDERS, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DI SMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEALS WITHOUT ADJUDICATING ON THE MERIT S OF THE ISSUE BY SIMPLY REFUSING TO CONDONE THE DELAY WHICH HAD OC CURRED IN FILING OF THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE L D. CIT(A) HAS REFUSED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION REGARDING THE DE LAY AND HAS REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DELAY BY OBSERVING THAT THE EXPLANATION WAS NOT SATISFACTORY. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOTHING TO GAIN BY DELAYING THE FILING OF THE A PPEALS AND ITS BONAFIDE IN EXPLAINING THE DELAY CANNOT BE IGNORED. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, ANANTNAG & ANR. REPORTED IN 1987 SCR (2) 387 HAS HELD THAT LIBERAL APPROACHED IS TO BE ADOPTED WHILE EXERCISING THE POWER TO CONDO NE DELAY IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE COURT TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO PARTIES BY DISPOSING OF MATTERS ON MERITS. THE HONBLE APEX CO URT HELD THAT: 'ANY APPEAL OR ANY APPLICATION, OTHER THAN AN APPLI CATION UNDER ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF ORDER XXI OF THE COD E OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. MAY BE ADMITTED AFTER THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD IF THE APPELLANT OR THE APPLICANT SATISFIES 5 ITA NOS.5675 TO 5680/DEL/2019 M/S. PYTHHOS TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. VS . ACIT-CPC THE COURT THAT HE HAD SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PREF ERRING THE APPEAL OR MAKING THE APPLICATION WITHIN SUCH PERIOD .' 1. ORDINARILY A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LODGING AN APPEAL LATE. 2. REFUSING TO CONDONE DELAY CAN 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. 3. 'EVERY DAY'S DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED' DOES NOT MEAN THAT A PEDANTIC APPROACH SHOULD BE MADE. WHY NOT EVERY HOUR'S DELAY, EVERY SECOND'S DELAY ? THE DOCTRINE MUST BE APPLIED IN A RATIONAL COMMON SENSE PRAGMATIC MANNER. 4. WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED FOR TH E OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON-DELIBERATE DELAY. 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 JUDICIARY IS RESPECTED NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS POWER TO LEGALIZE INJUSTICE O N TECHNICAL GROUNDS BUT BECAUSE IT IS CAPABLE OF REMOVING INJUSTICE AND IS EXPECTED TO DO SO. 6 ITA NOS.5675 TO 5680/DEL/2019 M/S. PYTHHOS TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. VS . ACIT-CPC 6.1 THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DICTA OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT AS AB OVE, WE RESTORE ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADJUDICATE THE APPEALS ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE. 7.0 IN THE FINAL RESULT, ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEA LS STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31/08/2020 SD/- SD/- (R.K.PANDA) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31/08/2020 PK/PS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI