STRONGBUILD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI V. OSD TDS CIR ITO TDS WD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6620/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd. appealing against orders from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concerning the processing of tax deducted at source (TDS) quarterly returns for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18. The primary issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the CIT(A), the adequacy of the opportunity given to the appellant to be heard, the ex-parte nature of the order, and the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the computation of delay in filing the appeal and the merits of the case, leading to the decision to remand the matter back for further examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471358 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Vedabhai alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil, M Sri Nivasulu vs ACIT(TS-817-HC-2023(MAD)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRASHANT BARATE
• Assessee Lawyers: DINKLE HARIYA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; TDS
• Section: 200A; 201

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Strongbuilt Constructions Pvt. Ltd., A-101, Aster Tower, Vasant Valley II, Film City Road Malad East, Mumbai-400097. Vs. ITO-TDS-Ward 2(2)(4), Room No. 321, Cumballa Hill MTNL Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. PAN NO. AAUCS 9521 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Revenue by : Mr. Prashant Barate, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 13/02/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders dated 13.12.2024 and 17.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18 respectively, in relation to processing of tax deducted of source quarterly returns. The grounds raised by the assessee for assessment year 2015 1. THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order framed by Income - tax (Appeals), Udaipur, ['Ld. CIT (A)] is bad, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions and the scheme and as otherwise also is not in accordance with the WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 2. NATURAL JUSTICE 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not granting proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of the appellate order. 2.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circum case, and in law, the appellate order so framed be held as bad and illegal, as the same is framed in breach of Justice. 3. EX-PARTE ORDER 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the order ex 3.2 While doing attendance / non Appellant / beyond the control of the Appellant and not deliberate or intentional. 3.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circum case, and in law, no such action was called for. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 4. CONDONATION OF DELAY 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not admitting the appeal and not condoning the delay. 4.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circums case, and in law, no such action was called for. Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd ITA Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 source quarterly returns. The grounds raised by the assessee for assessment year 2015-16 are reproduced as under: THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order framed by the Additional / Joint Commissioner of tax (Appeals), Udaipur, ['Ld. CIT (A)] is bad, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions and the scheme and as otherwise also is not in accordance with the WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 2. NATURAL JUSTICE The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not granting proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while framing the appellate order. It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order so framed be held as bad and illegal, as the same is framed in breach of the principles of Natural PARTE ORDER The Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the order ex - parte. While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the non attendance / non-reply was for the reasons not attributable to the Appellant / beyond the control of the Appellant and not deliberate or intentional. It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 4. CONDONATION OF DELAY 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not admitting the appeal and not condoning the delay. 4.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circums case, and in law, no such action was called for. Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd 2 Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 source quarterly returns. The grounds raised by the 16 are reproduced as under: THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the the Additional / Joint Commissioner of tax (Appeals), Udaipur, ['Ld. CIT (A)] is bad, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions and the scheme and as otherwise also is not in The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not granting proper, sufficient and being heard to the Appellant while framing stances of the case, and in law, the appellate order so framed be held as bad and the principles of Natural parte. so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the non- reply was for the reasons not attributable to the Appellant / beyond the control of the Appellant and not deliberate stances of the 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not admitting the appeal and not 4.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 5. DISMISSAL AS NOT ADJUDICTED 5.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal as not adjudicated upon, in absence of a copy of the order u/s. 201 of the Act. 5.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, no such WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 6. NON - EXISTENT ORDER 6.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in basis of Default Summary, as such demand was not backed by any order u/s. 201 of the Act. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 7. ON MERITS 7.1 It is submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no order making the Appellant liable for tax / interest for alleged short deduction/short payment / late payment of tax deducted at source was called for. 7.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the order / intimation so passe 7.3 Without prejudice to the above, in the alternative, assuming but not admitting / interest, the computation of the same is not in accordance with the law, is arbitrary a 2. Having examined the present matter concerning the challenge to the processing order of the quarterly TDS returns, it is observed that the assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] against the imposition of interest amounting to Rs. 9,744/ payment of TDS, as well as the levy of a fee amounting to Rs. Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd ITA Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 5. DISMISSAL AS NOT ADJUDICTED 5.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal as not adjudicated upon, in absence of a copy of the order u/s. 201 of the It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, no such action was called for. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: EXISTENT ORDER 6.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not cancelling the demand reflected merely on the basis of Default Summary, as such demand was not backed by any order u/s. 201 of the Act. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 7. ON MERITS 7.1 It is submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case d in law, no order making the Appellant liable for tax / interest for alleged short deduction/short payment / late payment of tax deducted at source was called for. 7.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the order / intimation so passed, if any, is bad and illegal. 7.3 Without prejudice to the above, in the alternative, assuming but not admitting - that the Appellant was to be made liable for tax / interest, the computation of the same is not in accordance with the law, is arbitrary and excessive. Having examined the present matter concerning the challenge to the processing order of the quarterly TDS returns, it is observed that the assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] against the on of interest amounting to Rs. 9,744/- payment of TDS, as well as the levy of a fee amounting to Rs. Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd 3 Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 5.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal as not adjudicated upon, in absence of a copy of the order u/s. 201 of the It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the 6.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. not cancelling the demand reflected merely on the basis of Default Summary, as such demand was not backed by any 7.1 It is submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case d in law, no order making the Appellant liable for tax / interest for alleged short deduction/short payment / late payment of tax 7.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the order 7.3 Without prejudice to the above, in the alternative, assuming - that the Appellant was to be made liable for tax / interest, the computation of the same is not in accordance with the Having examined the present matter concerning the challenge to the processing order of the quarterly TDS returns, it is observed that the assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] against the for the delayed payment of TDS, as well as the levy of a fee amounting to Rs. 67,744/- for the belated filing of the TDS return under Section 234E of the Income- Act\"). The Ld. CIT(A), upon perusal of the relevant records, noted a delay in the filing of the appeal, determining the same on the basis of the date of passing of the order, the date of service of the said order, and the date of filing of the appeal as reflected 35 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which is the prescribed form for instituting an appeal before the appellate authority. adjudicating upon the matter appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) duly considered the d Supreme Court, wherein an extension was granted for the filing of appeals during the Covid appreciation of facts and applicable legal provisions, the Ld. CIT(A) held the appeal to be not maintain “5. Decision : The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the appellant have been considered carefully. There is delay in the filing of appeal for which no sufficient reason was given by the appellant. On perusal of the fac order was passed on 15/01/2020 whereas the appeal was belatedly filed on 12/09/2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had extended the due dates for filing of appeal starting from 15th March, 2020 till May, 2022. It is noted that in the appellant's case the due date for filing appeal is prior to 15th March, 2020 and therefore, appellant's case does not fall within the said time period of extension of time line in filing appeal as per the Supreme Court judgement. Therefore, it may be conclude considered decision at the relevant point of time for not filing of appeal against the impugned order. Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd ITA Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 for the belated filing of the TDS return under Section -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the he Ld. CIT(A), upon perusal of the relevant records, noted a delay in the filing of the appeal, determining the same on the basis of the date of passing of the order, the date of service of the said order, and the date of filing of the appeal as reflected tax Rules, 1962, which is the prescribed form for instituting an appeal before the appellate authority. adjudicating upon the matter for condonation of delay in filing , the Ld. CIT(A) duly considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein an extension was granted for the filing of appeals during the Covid-19 pandemic period. However, upon due appreciation of facts and applicable legal provisions, the Ld. CIT(A) e appeal to be not maintainable, observing as under : “5. Decision : The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the appellant have been considered carefully. There is delay in the filing of appeal for which no sufficient reason was given by the appellant. On perusal of the facts it is seen that the order was passed on 15/01/2020 whereas the appeal was belatedly filed on 12/09/2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had extended the due dates for filing of appeal starting from 15th March, 2020 till May, 2022. It is noted that in the ellant's case the due date for filing appeal is prior to 15th March, 2020 and therefore, appellant's case does not fall within the said time period of extension of time line in filing appeal as per the Supreme Court judgement. Therefore, it may be concluded that the appellant took a conscious and considered decision at the relevant point of time for not filing of appeal against the impugned order. Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd 4 Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 for the belated filing of the TDS return under Section tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the he Ld. CIT(A), upon perusal of the relevant records, noted a delay in the filing of the appeal, determining the same on the basis of the date of passing of the order, the date of service of the said order, and the date of filing of the appeal as reflected in Form No. tax Rules, 1962, which is the prescribed form for instituting an appeal before the appellate authority. Further, while for condonation of delay in filing ecision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein an extension was granted for the filing of . However, upon due appreciation of facts and applicable legal provisions, the Ld. CIT(A) observing as under : The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the appellant have been considered carefully. There is delay in the filing of appeal for which no sufficient reason was given ts it is seen that the order was passed on 15/01/2020 whereas the appeal was belatedly filed on 12/09/2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had extended the due dates for filing of appeal starting from 15th March, 2020 till May, 2022. It is noted that in the ellant's case the due date for filing appeal is prior to 15th March, 2020 and therefore, appellant's case does not fall within the said time period of extension of time line in filing appeal as per the Supreme Court judgement. Therefore, it d that the appellant took a conscious and considered decision at the relevant point of time for not filing The appellant has failed to justify the delay in filing appeal. The delay in the instant case clearly demonstr appeal was not prosecuted with due care. The expression 'sufficient cause' is not defined, but it means a cause which is beyond the control of the party. For invoking the aid of the section any cause which prevents a person approaching the P sufficient cause. In doing so, it is the test of reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied. The test whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exe and attention. In other words, whether it is bona fide cause, inasmuch as nothing shall be deemed to be done bona fide or in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. What may be sufficient cause in one case may be otherwise in another. What is of essence is whether it was an act of prudent or reasonable man. The term sufficient cause means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner but must had acted diligently and not remained in active. Reliance is placed the judgement on Hon'ble High Court in the case of M Sri Nivasulu vs ACIT(TS The appellant has failed to justify the inordinate delay in filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges it appears that a conscio by the assessee at the relevant point of time for not filing of appeal against the impugned order. It is well a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and where the delay inordinate delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. On the issue of a routine delay and an inordinate delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil vs.Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] reported in 122 Taxman 114, has made a distinction between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the cases of trivial liberally considered, however the cases of inordinate delays Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd ITA Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 The appellant has failed to justify the delay in filing appeal. The delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. The expression 'sufficient cause' is not defined, but it means a cause which is beyond the control of the party. For invoking the aid of the section any cause which prevents a person approaching the POs within time is considered sufficient cause. In doing so, it is the test of reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied. The test whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. In other words, whether it is bona fide cause, inasmuch as nothing shall be deemed to be done bona fide or in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. What may be sufficient cause in one case may be se in another. What is of essence is whether it was an act of prudent or reasonable man. The term sufficient cause means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner but must had acted diligently and not remained in active. Reliance is placed the judgement on Hon'ble High Court in the case of M Sri Nivasulu vs ACIT(TS-817-HC-2023(MAD) dated 21.12.2023. The appellant has failed to justify the inordinate delay in filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges it appears that a conscious and considered decision was taken by the assessee at the relevant point of time for not filing of appeal against the impugned order. It is well-settled law that a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and where the delay is of few days only. The inordinate delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. On the issue of a routine delay and an inordinate delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias abai Baburao Patil vs.Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] reported in 122 Taxman 114, has made a distinction between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the cases of trivial delays have to be liberally considered, however the cases of inordinate delays Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd 5 Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 The appellant has failed to justify the delay in filing appeal. ates that this The expression 'sufficient cause' is not defined, but it means a cause which is beyond the control of the party. For invoking the aid of the section any cause which prevents a Os within time is considered sufficient cause. In doing so, it is the test of reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied. The test whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it could rcise of due care and attention. In other words, whether it is bona fide cause, inasmuch as nothing shall be deemed to be done bona fide or in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. What may be sufficient cause in one case may be se in another. What is of essence is whether it was The term sufficient cause means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner but must had acted diligently and not remained in active. Reliance is placed on the judgement on Hon'ble High Court in the case of M Sri 2023(MAD) dated 21.12.2023. The appellant has failed to justify the inordinate delay in filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges it us and considered decision was taken by the assessee at the relevant point of time for not filing of settled law that a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is of few days only. The inordinate delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. On the issue of a routine delay and an inordinate delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias abai Baburao Patil vs.Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] reported in 122 Taxman 114, has made a distinction between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court delays have to be liberally considered, however the cases of inordinate delays have to be approached cautiously. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under: \"In exercising discretion, under section 5 of the Lim the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard.\" In view of the above detailed d no \"sufficient cause\" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation as a matter of succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this ingredient is woefully lacking in this belated appeal filed by the appellant. Thus, the delay in filing the appellant, is not considered as sufficient cause and delay is therefore, not condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any discussion on merits or on any other aspect. Considering the above discussion and facts, the appeal file is not in conformity with the provisions of Sec 249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.” 3. Having heard the rival submissions advanced parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, we find that before us the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted a copy of the TDS reconciliation analysis, as downloaded from the official portal of the Income observed that the order processing the TDS return under Section Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd ITA Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 have to be approached cautiously. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under: \"In exercising discretion, under section 5 of the Lim the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard.\" In view of the above detailed discussion, it is held that the appellant has \"sufficient cause\" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation as a matter of right. For an appellant to succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this ingredient is woefully lacking in this belated appeal filed by the appellant. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal by the appellant, is not considered as sufficient cause and delay is therefore, not condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any discussion on merits or on any other aspect. Considering the above discussion and facts, the appeal file is not in conformity with the provisions of Sec 249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.” Having heard the rival submissions advanced by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, we find that before us the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted a copy of the TDS reconciliation analysis, as downloaded from the official portal of the Income-tax Department. Upon verification, it is observed that the order processing the TDS return under Section Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd 6 Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 have to be approached cautiously. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under: - \"In exercising discretion, under section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard.\" In view of the iscussion, it is held that the appellant has \"sufficient cause\" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well- settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the right. For an appellant to succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this ingredient is woefully lacking in this belated appeal filed by appeal by the appellant, is not considered as sufficient cause and delay is therefore, not condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any discussion on merits or on any other aspect. Considering the above discussion and facts, the appeal filed is not in conformity with the provisions of Sec 249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, we find that before us the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted a copy of the TDS reconciliation analysis, as downloaded from the rtment. Upon verification, it is observed that the order processing the TDS return under Section 200A of the Act was passed on 01.10.2015, raising a demand on account of interest for delayed payment and levy for late filing. However, the assessee has not f order passed under Section 200A of the Act. It is further noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee; however, the computation of delay in filing the appeal has not been adequately addressed. Before has contended that the assessee became aware of the demand raised due to the processing of the TDS return only on 15.01.2020 and, accordingly, considered the date of service for the purpose of filing an appeal before t the computation of delay in filing the appeal was made in accordance with this timeline, and the only reason cited for such delay was the Covid- CIT(A) has not adjudica the present appeal. Considering the factual matrix of the case and in the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a proper examination of the delay in filing the appeal. Upon due verification, the Ld. CIT(A) shall determine the issue of condonation of delay and, if deemed necessary, proceed to decide the matter on its merits in accordance with the law. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordin allowed for statistical purposes. Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd ITA Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 200A of the Act was passed on 01.10.2015, raising a demand on account of interest for delayed payment and levy for late filing. However, the assessee has not furnished the original copy of the order passed under Section 200A of the Act. It is further noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee; however, the computation of delay in filing the appeal has not been adequately addressed. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee has contended that the assessee became aware of the demand raised due to the processing of the TDS return only on 15.01.2020 and, accordingly, considered the date of service for the purpose of filing an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 31.01.2022. Consequently, the computation of delay in filing the appeal was made in accordance with this timeline, and the only reason cited for such -19 pandemic. It is further noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated upon the merits of the issues involved in the present appeal. Considering the factual matrix of the case and in the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a proper examination of y in filing the appeal. Upon due verification, the Ld. CIT(A) shall determine the issue of condonation of delay and, if deemed necessary, proceed to decide the matter on its merits in accordance The grounds raised by the assessee are accordin allowed for statistical purposes. Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd 7 Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 200A of the Act was passed on 01.10.2015, raising a demand on account of interest for delayed payment and levy for late filing. urnished the original copy of the order passed under Section 200A of the Act. It is further noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee; however, the computation of delay in filing the appeal has not been us, learned counsel for the assessee has contended that the assessee became aware of the demand raised due to the processing of the TDS return only on 15.01.2020 and, accordingly, considered the date of service for the purpose of he Ld. CIT(A) on 31.01.2022. Consequently, the computation of delay in filing the appeal was made in accordance with this timeline, and the only reason cited for such 19 pandemic. It is further noted that the Ld. ted upon the merits of the issues involved in the present appeal. Considering the factual matrix of the case and in the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a proper examination of y in filing the appeal. Upon due verification, the Ld. CIT(A) shall determine the issue of condonation of delay and, if deemed necessary, proceed to decide the matter on its merits in accordance The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly 4. In the matter concerning the assessment year 2017 observed that the learned primarily on the ground that the assessee did not furnish a copy of the processing order, nor was the same supplied by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, in the absence of such an order, preferred the appeal solely on the basis TRACES portal of the Income view, since TDS returns are processed electronically, the processing order under Section 200A of the Income referred to as \"the A assessee through electronic means. If the assessee does not have a copy of the said order, the same must be available with the Department on its servers, and it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to provide such a copy. The Assessing Officer cannot evade this responsibility. In the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to obtain a copy of the processing order under Section 200A of the Act, wherein the demand has been raised by the respective Assessing Officer. In the event that the Assessing Officer fails to provide such a copy to the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) shall take necessary steps to procure the same directly from Assessing Officer and thereafter proceed to decide the matter in accordance with the law. delay, if any, shall also be adjudicated upon by the Ld. CIT(A) in Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd ITA Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 In the matter concerning the assessment year 2017 observed that the learned Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground that the assessee did not furnish a copy of the processing order, nor was the same supplied by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, in the absence of such an order, preferred the appeal solely on the basis of the demand notice available on the TRACES portal of the Income-tax Department. In our considered view, since TDS returns are processed electronically, the processing order under Section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") must have been made available to the assessee through electronic means. If the assessee does not have a copy of the said order, the same must be available with the Department on its servers, and it is incumbent upon the Assessing ch a copy. The Assessing Officer cannot evade In the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to obtain a copy of the processing order ction 200A of the Act, wherein the demand has been raised by the respective Assessing Officer. In the event that the Assessing Officer fails to provide such a copy to the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) shall take necessary steps to procure the same directly from Assessing Officer and thereafter proceed to decide the matter in accordance with the law. Additionally, the issue of condonation of delay, if any, shall also be adjudicated upon by the Ld. CIT(A) in Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd 8 Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 In the matter concerning the assessment year 2017-18, it is has dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground that the assessee did not furnish a copy of the processing order, nor was the same supplied by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, in the absence of such an order, preferred the of the demand notice available on the In our considered view, since TDS returns are processed electronically, the processing tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ct\") must have been made available to the assessee through electronic means. If the assessee does not have a copy of the said order, the same must be available with the Department on its servers, and it is incumbent upon the Assessing ch a copy. The Assessing Officer cannot evade In the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to obtain a copy of the processing order ction 200A of the Act, wherein the demand has been raised by the respective Assessing Officer. In the event that the Assessing Officer fails to provide such a copy to the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) shall take necessary steps to procure the same directly from the Assessing Officer and thereafter proceed to decide the matter in Additionally, the issue of condonation of delay, if any, shall also be adjudicated upon by the Ld. CIT(A) in accordance with the settled legal principles. the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 13/02/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd ITA Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 accordance with the settled legal principles. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. nounced in the open Court on 13/02/2025. - (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd 9 Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 ounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed /02/2025. Sd/- PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "