M/s Image Labels Private Limited , Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CPC TDS , Bangalore

ITA 635/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7402 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; TDS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I TA NO S . 633 TO 644/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2013 - 14 & 20 1 4 - 1 5 M/S. IMAGE LABELS PRIVATE LTD., NO. 10, OFF KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, VAJARAHALLI, BANGALORE 560 062. PAN: AAACI3830P VS. THE ACIT CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 09 .0 7 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 .0 7 .2019 O R D E R PER BENCH ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-3, BANGALORE ALL DATED 09.01.2019 AND ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED ARE 2013-14 AND 2014-15. THESE APPEALS ARE IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF LATE FILING FEES U/S. 234E OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOUNT OF LATE FILING OF TDS RETURNS UNDER VARIOUS SECTIONS OF VARIOUS QUARTERS OF THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THESE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 09.07.2019 AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS PER ID AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN SPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD EX- PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A). 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR OF REVENUE AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IN RESPECT OF LATE FILING OF FORM NO. 24Q FOR SECOND QUARTER FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 IN ITA NO. 633/BANG/2019, THE ISSUE HAS ITA NOS. 633 TO 644/BANG/2019 PAGE 2 OF 4 BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) AS PER PARAS 4.0 TO 4.2 OF HIS ORDER. THESE PARAS ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW. 4.0 IN THE FORM 35 THE APPELLANT HAS INDICATED THAT IT HAS CHALLENGED ORDER NO. TDS/1213/24Q/D/100019466624 DT 14.06.2016 UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE DOCUMENT UPLOADED BY THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH FORM 35 IS NOT AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. INSTEAD THE SAME IS A LETTER WITH REF NO. 25072017/00495/CD DT. 25.07.2017 FROM THE AC), INFORMING THE APPELLANT ABOUT ITS OUTSTANDING TDS DEMANDS. THE SUBJECT OF THIS LETTER IS 'INTIMATION OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND'. VIDE THIS LETTER THE AO HAD INFORMED THE APPELLANT ABOUT ITS OUTSTANDING TDS DEMANDS FOR FY 2007-08 TO FY 2013-14. 4.1 THE ABOVE REFERRED LETTER FROM AO, MAKING AWARE THE APPELLANT ABOUT ITS OUTSTANDING TDS DEMAND RELATING TO FY 2007-08 TO FY 2013- 14, IS NOT APPEALABLE ORDER WHICH CAN BE CHALLENGED BEFORE CIT(A) AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 246A OF THE ACT. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS (ORDER SHEET ENTRY DI 07.01.2019) THE APPELLANT WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO PROVIDE COPY OF THE RELEVANT ORDER UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, IF IT INTENDED TO CHALLENGE THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT INFORMED THAT THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND THE APPEAL MAY BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF LETTER FROM AO INTIMATING THE TDS DEMAND FOR VARIOUS FINANCIAL YEARS. 4.2 SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED COPY OF THE RELEVANT ORDER UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, THE APPEAL IS FOUND TO BE DEFECTIVE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. FURTHER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DELAY IN TILING APPEAL, THE SAME HAS TO BE COMPUTED FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF RELEVANT ORDERS UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT BY THE APPELLANT AND NOT FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF LETTER FROM THE AO INTIMATING THE APPELLANT ABOUT ITS PENDING TDS DEMANDS. ANYHOW, THE ISSUE OF DELAY BECOMES ACADEMIC AND THE SAME IS NOT BEING ADJUDICATED 4. FROM THE ABOVE PARAS, IT COMES OUT THAT AS PER FORM NO. 35 FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 200A OF THE IT ACT BUT THE COPY OF THE ORDER ENCLOSED WITH FORM NO. 35 IS NOT THAT ORDER DATED 14.06.2016 AND IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ENCLOSED A COPY OF LETTER DATED 25.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE INFORMING THE ASSESSEE ABOUT ITS OUTSTANDING TDS DEMANDS. UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE ORDER U/S. 200A AND HENCE, THE APPEAL IS FOUND TO BE DEFECTIVE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO, THE SAID ORDER U/S. 200A DATED 14.06.2016 HAS NOT BEEN FILED. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ITA NOS. 633 TO 644/BANG/2019 PAGE 3 OF 4 5. IN ITA NO. 634/BANG/2019 ALSO, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND IN THIS APPEAL ALSO, THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) IS SAME THAT THE RELEVANT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 200A OF THE IT ACT WAS NOT FILED ALONG WITH FORM NO. 35. HENCE THIS APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED ON SAME LINE. 6. IN ITA NO. 635/BANG/2019, WE FIND THAT AS PER THE RELEVANT ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE HIM AFTER DELAY OF 320 DAYS AND A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) THAT THERE EXIST NO SUFFICIENT OR GOOD REASON FOR CONDONING THIS INORDINATE DELAY OF 320 DAYS AND HE DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. BEFORE US ALSO, NO REASONABLE CAUSE WAS SHOWN REGARDING THIS DELAY AND HENCE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. 7. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 636/BANG/2019. AS PER THE RELEVANT ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE ORDER U/S. 200A OF THE IT ACT AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND FOR THIS REASON, THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY LD. CIT(A). IN LINE WITH OUR DECISION IN ITA NO. 633/BANG/2019, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED ON SAME LINE. 8. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 637/BANG/2019. WE FIND THAT IN THE RELEVANT ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), IT IS HELD BY LD. CIT(A) THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED AFTER A DELAY OF 310 DAYS AND THERE EXISTED NO SUFFICIENT OR GOOD REASON FOR CONDONING THIS INORDINATE DELAY OF 310 DAYS. FOR THE SAME REASONS DUE TO WHICH WE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 635/BANG/2019, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED ON SAME LINE. 9. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 638/BANG/2019. IN THIS APPEAL ALSO, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO. 633/BANG/2019 AND IN SAME LINE THIS APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. 10. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 639/BANG/2019. IN THIS APPEAL ALSO, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 633/BANG/2019 AND HENCE, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED ON SAME LINE. 11. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 640/BANG/2019. THIS APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED BY LD. CIT(A) BECAUSE OF INORDINATE DELAY OF 310 DAYS. THEREFORE, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO. 635/BANG/2019 AND HENCE, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED ON SAME LINE. ITA NOS. 633 TO 644/BANG/2019 PAGE 4 OF 4 12. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 641/BANG/2019. IN THIS APPEAL, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 635/BANG/2019 AND ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED ON SAME LINE. 13. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 642/BANG/2019. IN THIS APPEAL ALSO, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 635/BANG/2019 AND ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED ON SAME LINE. 14. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 643/BANG/2019. IN THIS APPEAL, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 633/BANG/2019 AND HENCE, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED ON SAME LINE. 15. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 644/BANG/2019. IN THIS APPEAL, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 635/BANG/2019 AND ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED ON SAME LINE. 16. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 12 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 19 TH JULY, 2019. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.