PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CHANDPOLE BAZAR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, JAIPUR

PER BENCH: These three appeals by the assessee are directed against three separate orders of ld. CIT(A)-III, Jaipur all dated 09.11.2018 arising from the order passed by the Assessing Officer U/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for 2nd 3rd and 4th quarters of financial year 2009-10 relevant to the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals:-

to 5/JP/2019 Punjab National Bank vs. ITO (TDS)

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-3, Jaipur, has erred in not allowing the relief against wrongly holding the assessee as assessee in default of not deducting the tax at source out of interest payments to Zila Water and Sanitation Committee, Zaila Parishad Collectrate, Jaipur of Rs. 2,80,152/-and thereby raising of demand u/s 201(1) of Rs. 2,88,557/- and demand u/s 201(1A) of Rs. 2,59,701/-, totaling to demand of Rs. 5,48,258/-.

year 2010-11. The assessee challenged the orders passed by the AO before the ld. CIT(A) however, filed only one appeal against the four orders passed by the AO in respect of 4 quarters. The ld. CIT(A) treated the appeal filed by the assessee as the appeal against the orders passed by the AO in respect of first quarter of financial year 2009-10 and thereby decided the said appeal. On this objection raised by the ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed three separate of appeals on 19.09.2018 with an application for condonation of delay explaining the cause of delay as bonafide mistake on the part of the tax consultant to file one appeal instead of 4 appeals. It was also explained that since the demand notice issued by the AO was in respect of the total sum of 4 quarters and therefore, the assessee mistakenly filed one appeal instead of 4 appeals. The assessee explained that mistake was committed by it while acting in good faith. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept this explanation by the assessee for filing belatedly appeals in respect of these 3 quarters and dismissed all three appeals with an identical reasoning in para 3 as under:-

“3. I have carefully gone through the condonation delay petition. I find that the A/R of the appellant not submitted any justified reason for delay of 502 days. He only stated that assessment order was passed quarterly and combined appeal filed for all the four quarters on 20.04.2017 which is not as per law as separate 3 to 5/JP/2019 Punjab National Bank vs. ITO (TDS) demand notice were issued the each quarter, so the appeal will be filed separately for each quarter but appellant not filed. Therefore I am the view that there was no genuine cause which prevent the appellant to file the appeal in time. Hence, I reject the condonation delay petition for 502 days and the appeal is dismissed at admission stage.”

There is no dispute that the original appeal filed by the assessee for all four quarters on 20.04.2017 was within the period of limitation and the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee by treating the same as appeal against the order passed by the AO for first quarter of financial year 2009-10 relevant to assessment year 2010-11. The facts are not in dispute that the assessee dully filed the appeal within the period of limitation however, due to bonafide mistake and that too on the part of the tax consultant of the assessee to file one appeal instead of 4 separate appeals for each quarter order passed by the AO.

Accordingly, in these facts and circumstances when the assessee has explained the cause of delay which is factually correct as due to bonafide mistake the assessee filed only one appeal instead of four separate appeals against quarterly orders passed by the AO, we condone the delay of 502 days in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). Consequently the impugned orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeals in limine are set aside and the matters are 4 to 5/JP/2019 Punjab National Bank vs. ITO (TDS) remitted to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits. Needs to say that the assessee be given an appropriate opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13/08/2020.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Vikram Singh Yadav) (Vijay Pal Rao) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 13/08/2020. *Santosh. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Punjab National Bank, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, TDS-1, Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 3 to 5/JP/2019} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत