M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

ITA 1471, 1475, 1476, 1480, 1483, 1485, 1486, 1487 & 2 1489/JP/2018 Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs DCIT(TDS)

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts and circumstances in all the cases are same wherein the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals on the ground of delay in filing without going into the merits of the case.

From the record, I found that the assessee is a government bank engaged in banking activities. The assessee used to take deposits from the customers and give loans and other banking services to its customers. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has not deducted TDS on interest payment exceeding basic limit. It was contended before the Assessing Officer that the customers to whom the interest was paid have duly filled Form 15G/15H, therefore the bank did not deduct tax. However, the Assessing Officer found that the aggregate interest in the financial year exceeded the basic exemption limit as per Income Tax Act for filing return U/s 139(1) of the Act and still no TDS was deducted. The Assessing Officer treated the assessee is in default U/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which was delayed.

It was submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that the banking company having branches vise separate TDS no. and therefore, the demand notice was received at branch address. Branch staff and branch manager are generally not aware about intricacies and procedural aspects of income tax assessment. Even, they have no idea regarding filing of appeal within a 30 days of receiving of order, therefore, did not note the date of receiving of order. Moreover, the concerned officer at the branch was transferred shortly after which led to oblivion towards the matter. Furthermore, the notice was received on 11.10.2017 for deposit of demand or otherwise attachment of bank accounts and then the matter was brought under consideration of senior officer at H.O. level. Senior officer at the H.O. level requested to the concerned Income Tax Officer for assessment order and certified copy of the same was received to branch on 12.01.2018. Finally, branch was advised to filing of appeals before respective Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

It was also submitted that the bank did not derive any benefit from delay in filing of appeals; rather it suffered as serious risk of high handed demand. It is submitted that the judiciary is respected on account of its power to provide justice and not for condoning injustice

The ld. CIT(A) did not convince with the reasons for delay filing of appeals, accordingly, he dismissed the appeals on the ground of delay without going into the merits of the case.

I have heard the rival contentions and carefully gone through the reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). I found that there was sufficient reason for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Chandra Vohra Vs ACIT (2009)

In the result, all the nine appeals of the assessee are allowed in part for statistical purposes in terms indicated hereinabove.