Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI
PER BENCH :
The instant batch of eleven appeals pertains to a single assessee viz., Arty Static WKSP EME, Deolali. All the other relevant particulars stand duly tabulated hereinabove.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s identical substantive grievance in all of these
2 ITA.Nos.617 to 627/PUN./2023 instant appeals challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action levying late filing fee u/sec.200A r.w.s. 234E of the Act, in light of corresponding statutory amendment applicable w.e.f. 01.06.2015.
Mr. Murkunde invited our attention to the CIT(A)'s identical detailed discussion affirming the impugned levy as as under :
3 ITA.Nos.617 to 627/PUN./2023 4 ITA.Nos.617 to 627/PUN./2023 5 ITA.Nos.617 to 627/PUN./2023 6 ITA.Nos.617 to 627/PUN./2023 7 ITA.Nos.617 to 627/PUN./2023 8 ITA.Nos.617 to 627/PUN./2023 9 ITA.Nos.617 to 627/PUN./2023 10 ITA.Nos.617 to 627/PUN./2023
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival submissions against and in support of the correctness of the CIT(A)'s identical lower appellate detailed discussion. We make it clear that there is no dispute between the parties about the settled legal position in principle regarding the applicability of the amended provision for the purpose of levying late filing fee u/sec.234E of the Act. The assessee’s stand all along in the instant batch of eleven appeals is that it was prevented by reasons beyond it’s control so as to comply with the corresponding provisions in all these quarters involving various assessment years.
Mr. Shingte took us to the assessee’s pleadings in it’s written submissions filed before the learned CIT(A) that the sole reason herein leading to the assessee’s non-compliance is the fact that it is a government office [Ministry of Defence] wherein the corresponding book identification numbers “BIN” could not be generated at the end of Principal Controller of Defence Accounts. Mr. Murkunde could hardly dispute that this clinching reason has nowhere been considered in the 11 ITA.Nos.617 to 627/PUN./2023 CIT(A)'s detailed discussion in light of relevant material on record. Faced with the situation, we deem it appropriate to restore all these assessees’ eleven appeals back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the condition that the assessee shall file all the relevant details as per law before him. Ordered accordingly.
There is a delay of 52 days in filing the instant appeals before the tribunal and the assessee-appellant filed an affidavit explaining reasons thereof. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice. We, therefore, condone the impugned delay and take-up the instant appeals for adjudication on merits.
No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.
These assessee’s eleven appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
12 ITA.Nos.617 to 627/PUN./2023 Order pronounced in the open court on 17.07.2023.