SECUTECH AUTOMATION (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 3, MUMBAI

ITA 961/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2720 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N SATYA MOORTHYDR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -EBENCH MUMBAI , . . , BEFORE S/SH.RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND C.N. PRASAD,JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ITA.S./961-963/MUM/2014, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 TO2011-12 SECUTECH AUTOMATION(INDIA)PVT.LTD. NARARYAN BHUVAN,D L VAIDYA RD. DADAR,MUMBAI-400028 PAN:AAICS 2475 F VS. ADDL.CIT(TDS)RANGE-4 K G MITTAL AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL BLDG. CHARNI ROAD. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI N. SATYA MOORTHY-DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI DHARMESH SHAH / DATE OF HEARING: 21.07.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.07.2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDERS,DATED 18/12/2013 OF THE CIT (A)-14,MUMBAI THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEALS FOR THE ABOVE-MENTIONED THREE ASSESSMENT YE ARS(AY.S.).ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS IS ABOUT LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.272A(2)(K)OF THE ACT,F OR FILING QUARTERLY RETURNS IN FORM NUMBER 24Q/26Q BELATEDLY.SO,WE ARE ADJUDICATING ALL THE AP PEALS BY SINGLE ORDER. ITA/961/MUM/2014-AY.2009-10: 2. ON EXAMINATION OF RECORDS, THE AO NOTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD NOT FILED QUARTERLY TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE STATEMENTS IN FORM NUMBER 24Q AND 20 6Q W ITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 206/206C OF THE ACT, READ WITH RULE 37 OF THE INCOM E TAX RULES, 1962 (RULES) FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THAT WERE REQUIRED TO BE FILED IN THE END OF THE EVERY QUARTER. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200 (3) READ WITH RULE 31A, A QUARTERLY STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IN FORM NUMBER 24Q AND 26Q IS REQUIRED TO BE FIVE B Y THE ASSESSEE BY 15 TH JULY, 15 TH OCTOBER, 15 TH JANUARY AND 15 TH JUNE OF THE YEAR. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILE THE STATEMENTS IN TIME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING IT TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272A(2)(K) SHOULD NOT BE LIVI NG. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, AS PER THE AO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY REPLY.THE AO HELD THA T THE ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE STATEMENTS WAS NOT DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSEE. INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 272A(2)(K),HE LEVIED A PENALT Y OF RS.7.08 LAKHS FOR LATE FILING OF THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE RETURNS. 961-63-SECUTECH 2 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA).AS PER THE FAA,NOBODY APPEARED BEFO RE HER NOR ANY EXPLANATION WAS FILED FOR NOT FILING THE REQUIRED RETURNS WITHIN THE STIPULAT ED TIME.UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE AO, SHE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INFORMED THE OFFICE OF THE FAA ABOUT THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS, THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY HEARING NOTICE,THAT FAA HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE WITH OUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE.THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT VIDE ITS LETTER,DT.15.4.2013,THE ASSESSEE HAD INFORMED THE F AA THAT IT HAD CHANGED ITS OFFICE FROM DADAR TO MAHIM AND THAT THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS SHOULD BE NOTED FOR THE APPEALS FILED FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED 3 YEARS.WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE LETTER O F THE ASSESSEE WAS RECD IN THE OFFICE OF THE FAA.EVEN THEN SHE DID NOT ISSUE HEARING NOTICE ON T HE NEW ADDRESS AND ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL. THE ORDER OF THE FAA IS SILENT ABOUT THE SERVICE OF THE HEARING NOTICE.IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS VIOLATION OF PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE-THE MATTER WAS DECIDED WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE.THEREFOE, IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE WE ARE RESTORING BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE FAA FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WHO W OULD AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF EFFECTIVE HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE .GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DECIDED IN ITS FAVOUR,IN PART. ITA.S./962-963/MUM/14 (AY.S.2010-11 AND 11-12) FOLLOWING OUR ORDERS FOR THE EARLIER YEAR,WE ARE RE STORING BACK THE ISSUE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE EARLIER YEAR, EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR BOTH THE AY.S ARE D ECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE,IN PART. AS A RESULT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE THREE AY.S. STAND PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST ,JULY,2016. 21 , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . / C.N. PRASAD ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED :21.07.2016. JV.SR.PS. 961-63-SECUTECH 3 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.