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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 103/CTK/2019Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 November 2019AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, having only decided one ground. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a District Labour Office, appealed against the confirmation of late filing fees by the CIT(A). The primary grievance was that the CIT(A) confirmed the fee without issuing a show cause notice and without adjudicating all grounds of appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming late filing fees without issuing a show cause notice and whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated all grounds of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: SHRI & LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda
For Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.100 to 103/CTK/201 /CTK/2019 Assessment Year Assessment Years:16-17(Qr.4) & 2017-18 (Qr. Nos. 2 to 4) 18 (Qr. Nos. 2 to 4) District District Labour Labour Office, Office, Vs. ACIT, CPC ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad- Nuapada, Khapuria, Cuttack Nuapada, Khapuria, Cuttack 201010 PAN/GIR No. No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Natabar Panda Natabar Panda, AR Revenue by : Shri J.K.Lenka 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 C.M.Garg,JM These are ese are appeals filed by the assessee against the filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the CIT(A), of the CIT(A), Cuttack for the assessment year for the assessment year 2016-17 and 2017-18. 18.

2.

In all four appeals, although the assessee has raised various In all four appeals, although the assessee has raised various In all four appeals, although the assessee has raised various grounds but the effective grievance is that the ld CIT(A) is not grounds but the effective grievance is that the ld CIT(A) is not grounds but the effective grievance is that the ld CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the imposition of late filing fee without late filing fee without issuing show cause notice to the appellant. issuing show cause notice to the appellant.

3.

At the time of hearing, ld counsel for the assessee submitted At the time of hearing, ld counsel for the assessee submitted At the time of hearing, ld counsel for the assessee submitted that before the CIT(A), the assessee had raised as many as six that before the CIT(A), the assessee had raised as many as six 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 m e n t Y e 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 m e n t Y e 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 m e n t Y e 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 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →