DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE,CUTATCK vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 100/CTK/2019Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 November 2019AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had only adjudicated one ground of appeal and failed to address the other grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Government of Odisha organization, was levied late filing fees for quarterly TDS returns. The assessee argued that the fees were imposed without a show cause notice and that the delay was due to exigencies, with tax deposited and certificates issued on time.

What were the issues?

Whether late filing fees under Section 234E can be imposed without issuing a show cause notice. Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated all grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda, AR
For Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Hearing: 25/11

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA Nos.100 to 103/CTK/2019 Assessment Years:16-17(Qr.4) & 2017-18 (Qr. Nos. 2 to 4)

District Labour Office, Vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad- Nuapada, Khapuria, Cuttack 201010 PAN/GIR No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Natabar Panda, AR Revenue by : Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

Date of Hearing : 25/11/ 2019 Date of Pronouncement : 25 /11/ 2019

O R D E R Per C.M.Garg,JM These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate

orders of the CIT(A), Cuttack for the assessment year 2016-17

and 2017-18.

2.

In all four appeals, although the assessee has raised various

grounds but the effective grievance is that the ld CIT(A) is not

justified in confirming the imposition of late filing fee without

issuing show cause notice to the appellant.

3.

At the time of hearing, ld counsel for the assessee submitted

that before the CIT(A), the assessee had raised as many as six

P a g e 1 | 4

I T A N o s . 1 0 0 t o 1 0 3 / C T K / 2 0 1 9 A s s e s s me n t Ye a r s :1 6 -1 7 (Q r . 4 ) & 2 0 1 7 -1 8 (Q r . N o s . 2 t o 4 )

grounds but the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed by

adjudicating Ground No.1 of the assessee only. Ld A.R. submitted

that the order passed by the ACIT-CPC-TDS is illegal being devoid

of jurisdiction, hence, the intimation issued is liable to be

quashed. Ld A.R. vehemently pointed out that the AO is not

justified in imposing late filing fee on the appellant without issuing

show cause notice and the AO ought to have considered the

exigencies for which the appellant being a Government of Odisha

Organisation was prevented to file quarterly return in time, hence,

the delay occurred should have been condoned and the late filing

fee levied on the appellant is liable to be cancelled or waived. Ld

A.R contended that the AO has passed a non-speaking order in a

mechanical manner, hence, intimation issued is liable to be

quashed. Ld A.R. also pointed out that the appellant has

deposited tax deduction amount in time with the Government

exchequer and issued the certificate in Form No. 16A to the

deductee before the due time, therefore, no one has been

adversely affected in the process. Therefore, impugned penalty

being unjustified is liable to be cancelled/waived.

4.

Replying to above, ld D.R. pointed out that when TDS return

was filed belatedly, then the ACIT CPC-TDS has nothing to do

because imposition of penalty being system generated order,

P a g e 2 | 4

I T A N o s . 1 0 0 t o 1 0 3 / C T K / 2 0 1 9 A s s e s s me n t Ye a r s :1 6 -1 7 (Q r . 4 ) & 2 0 1 7 -1 8 (Q r . N o s . 2 t o 4 )

which does not require a normal processing of hearing before the

AO. However, in all fairness, ld D.R. submitted that if it is just

and proper to remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh

adjudication, the department has no objection to adjudicate

Ground Nos.2 to 6 of appeal raised before the CIT(A).

5.

On careful consideration of the first appellate order, we

clearly observe that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the

assessee by deciding Ground No.1 of appeal of the appellant in all

four quarters and there is no adjudication or deliberation with

regard to Ground Nos.2 to 6 of the appellant. The ld CIT(A) is

required to adjudicate all grounds raised by the

assessee/appellant in Form No.35 and such lapse tags the CIT(A)

incomplete adjudication order. Keeping in view the rival

submissions of both the sides and considering the totality of the

facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view

that the CIT(A) has decided only Ground No.1 of appeal and has

not adjudicated Ground Nos.2 to 6 of appeal raised in Form No.35

in all four appeals, which is bearing on the findings recorded by

the CIT(A) pertaining to Ground No.1 of appeal. Therefore, we

deem it just and proper to restore the appeals to the file of the

CIT(A) to decide the appeals denovo by adjudicating all the

grounds of appeal raised before him.

P a g e 3 | 4

I T A N o s . 1 0 0 t o 1 0 3 / C T K / 2 0 1 9 A s s e s s me n t Ye a r s :1 6 -1 7 (Q r . 4 ) & 2 0 1 7 -1 8 (Q r . N o s . 2 t o 4 )

6.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 25 /11/2019.

Sd/- sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) (Chandra Mohan Garg) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Cuttack; Dated 25 /11/2019 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : District Labour Office, Nuapada, Khapuria, Cuttack

2.

The Respondent. ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad-201010 3. The CIT(A)-, Cuttack 4. Pr.CIT, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//

By order

Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 4 | 4

More judgments on Section 234E

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →