THE DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,SHAJAPUR vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (TDS), INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 45/IND/2019Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 November 2019AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and no merits were adjudicated. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a State Government enterprise, filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) which were dismissed for non-appearance. The delay in filing appeals before the ITAT was attributed to an office clerk's oversight. The appeals pertained to penalties levied for non-filing of TCS statements.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals should be condoned and whether the penalties levied for non-filing of TCS statements require adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 206C(6A),Section 206C(7),Section 272A(2)(k)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Respondent: Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.11.2019

आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH : The above bunch of captioned appeals filed at the instance of Assessee for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2012-13 are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Ujjain, (in short ‘CIT(A)’), dated 17.01.2017, 02.01.2017, 17,02.2017, 13.01.2017 which are arising out of the order u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) &

1.

The District Mining Officer . ITANos.42 to 49/Ind/2019 272A(2)(k)) of the Income Tax Act 1961(hereinafter called as the ‘Act’) framed by ITO-TDS-Ujjain.

2.

Registry has informed that these bunch of eight appeals are time barred by 1 (one) year, 10 months & 31 days. Application for condonation of delay along with the affidavit is placed on record. In the affidavit assessee has mentioned that the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) was received by the office clerk on 20.02.2017 but inadvertently he did not inform the concerned officer about it and left it unattended with other office records. It was only when the income tax department approached the assessee for recovery of demand, it came to knowledge that Ld. CIT(A) has already dismissed the assessee’s appeals for non-appearance. Immediately, thereafter the appeals have filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

3.

We have perused the condonation application and affidavit and find merit in the contentions made therein & reason for delay seems to be reasonable. Looking to the fact that the assessee is a State Government runs enterprise and since the impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte order and nothing on merits has been adjudicated, we in the larger interest of justice condone the delay and admit all these eight appeals for adjudication.

4.

The instant appeals are against the levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) & 206C(6A)/206C(7) for A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2012-13 for default for non filing of TCS statements relating to tax collected at The District Mining Officer . ITANos.42 to 49/Ind/2019 source. For the sake of convenience the penalty amounts for each of the four assessment years under both the provisions u/s 272A(2)(k) & 206C(6A)/206C(7) are mentioned below: A.Y. Penalty 206C(6A) Tax deducted u/s272A(2)(k) payable 2009-10 20,560 8670 20,560 2010-11 2,10,290 1,01,430 2,97,523 2011-12 16,750 3,910 16,750 2012-13 52,460 5670 52,460

5.

Grounds of appeal raised are common for all the years which apart from challenging the levy of penalty also claims that there was a reasonable cause for late filing of TCS returns.

6. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee requested for granting one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld. CIT(A) so that necessary submissions can be made before the Ld. CIT(A) relating to reasonable cause for delay in filing the returns and also to contend that no penalty levied u/s 272A(2)(k).

7. Ld. Department Representative(DR) opposed the request made by the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitting that multiple opportunities were given to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A) which remain unattended.

8.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Common issue raised in all these 8(eight) appeals relates to levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) & 206C(6A)/206C(7) for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2012-13. We observe that impugned orders of Ld. 3

The District Mining Officer . ITANos.42 to 49/Ind/2019 CIT(A), ex-parte orders and there is no finding of merits of the case. Ld. CIT(A) has nowhere adjudicated the issue of penalty levied by the ld. AO. In these given facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the issues raised in all these appeals relating to levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) & 206C(6A)/206C(7), needs to be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits of the case and for passing a speaking order. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard to be provided to the assessee.

9.

In the result, the finding of Ld. CIT(A) are set aside and all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated above. Order was pronounced in the open court on 28 .11.2019.

More judgments on Section 206C(6A)

All 121 judgments and leading authorities on Section 206C(6A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →