Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0827 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
29-08-2022
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
08-05-2022
Judgement Text
आयकर अपीऱीयअधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री द ु व्ि ू रु आर एऱ रेड्डी, न्याययक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बाऱाक ृ ष्णन, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON‟BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. Nos.98 & 99/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Charitasri Hospitals Limited, Vijayawada. PAN: AACCC 2726 L Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle-1, Vijayawada. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Sri GVN Hari, Advocate प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. AR स ु नवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 29/08/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 30/08/2022 O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, Judicial Member : Both the captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037258759(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037258820(1), dated 26/11/2021 for the AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Since the issues 2 raised in both the appeals are identical, both these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed off in this consolidated order. 2. It is noted from the appeals record that there is a delay of 104 days in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation petitions explaining the reasons for filing the appeals beyond the prescribed time limit. In the condonation petitions it is stated that the period of delay pertains to the grace period provided by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on account of COVID Pandemic situation. As per the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SMW(A) No.3 of 2020, the period of limitation for filing the appeals under general laws and all special laws falling between 15/3/2020 and 28/02/2022 shall be excluded for calculating the delay. Considering the same, I hereby condone the delay of 104 days in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the cases on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds for the AY 2013-14: 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 3 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity to the appellant to rectify the defect in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that levy of late f iling fee u/s. 234E of the Act for the FY 2012-13 vide the intimations u/s. 200A of the Act passed as under is not in accordance with law: Quarter Late filing fee U/s. 234E of the Act (Rs.) Q-2 66,600 Q-3 48,200 Q-4 24,200 Total 1,39,000 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds for the AY 2014-15: 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity to the appellant to rectify the defect in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that levy of late filing fee u/s. 234E of the Act for the FY 2012-13 vide the intimations u/s. 200A of the Act passed as under is not in accordance with law: Quarter Late filing fee U/s. 234E of the Act (Rs.) Q-1 90,400 Q-2 72,000 Q-3 53,600 Q-4 29,600 Total 2,16,000 5. Brief facts of the case relevant to AY 2013-14 are that the assessee is engaged in the business of running hospitals under the name and style of „Charitasri Hospitals Limited‟. During the FY 2012-13 relevant to the AY under consideration, the assessee had deducted TDS on payments of Professional Charges, Security 4 Charges and subsequently filed the TDS quarterly returns in the prescribed Forms. Due to some technical problem in the in the software, the statements processed in terms of section 200A had resulted in huge demand which was later rectified on production of TDS challans and linking them with the IT portal of the assessee. Considering the delay in filing the TDS quarterly statements, the Ld. AO vide intimation U/s. 200A dated 16/11/2013 levied late filing fee aggregating to 1,39,000/- [for Q2, Q3 and Q4 of FY 2012-13] U/s. 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of delayed filing of the TDS returns for the AY 2013-14. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex- parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before me, at the time of hearing, it was the submission of the Ld. AR that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given proper opportunity to the assessee to explain the reasons for the delay in filing the TDS returns. Ld. AR further submitted that there were some mistakes in the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and the CIT (A) had not given an opportunity to rectify the 5 mistakes and dismissed the appeal. It was therefore pleaded that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A) as per the principles of natural justice in order to substantiate its claim against the levy of late filing fees u/s. 234E of the Act. Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. 7. I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. At the outset, I find merit in the arguments of the Ld. AR that because of the Technical issues in the software the statements processed in terms of section 200A had resulted in huge demand which was later rectified on production of the TDS challans which is also not disputed by the Ld. CIT (A). Further, I am of the strong opinion that when there are some mistakes apparent in the appeal filed by the assessee before the first appellate authority, following the principles of natural justice, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity to rectify the mistakes before adjudicating the appeal instead of dismissing the appeal ex-parte. Under these circumstances, considering the prayer of the Ld. AR, and in the interest of justice, I 6 hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) in order to consider the appeal afresh on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. CIT (A) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT (A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly. 8. Since the issues raised in both the appeals are identical, the decision given in the appeal for the AY 2013-14, in the above paras of this order, mutatis mutandis applies to the assessee‟s appeal for the AY 2014-15 also. 9. In the result, two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove. Pronounced in the open Court on the 30 th August, 2022. Sd/- (द ु व्ि ू रु आर.एऱ रेड्डी) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) न्याययकसदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 30.08.2022 OKK - SPS 7 आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाररती/ The Assessee– Charitasri Hospitals Limited, D.No.29-6-8/1, Ramachandra Rao Road, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada. 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, 4 th Floor, Stalin Corporate, Industrial Estate, J Auto Nagar, Vijayawada. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 4.आयकर आय ु क्त (अऩीऱ)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 5. ववभधगीय प्रनतननधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ववशधखधऩटणम/ DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6.गधर्ा फ़धईऱ / Guard file आदेशधन ु सधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam
