ARTY STATIC WKSP EME,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), NASHIK, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 624/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 July 202312 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's reason for non-compliance, related to BIN generation issues within a government department, was not adequately considered by the lower authorities. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a government office, faced challenges in generating Book Identification Numbers (BINs) due to reasons beyond its control, leading to delayed filing of TDS statements. The lower authorities levied late filing fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the late filing fee under Section 234E is leviable when the delay in filing TDS statements is due to reasons beyond the assessee's control, specifically issues with BIN generation in a government department.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. 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

Hearing: 11.07.2023Pronounced: 17.07.2023

PER BENCH :

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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.

7.

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.

More judgments on Section 234E

All 4,792 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234E →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →