THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,BADAUN vs. ITO (TDS), MORADABAD
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, & SHRI VIMAL KUMARAsstt. Year : 2010-11
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM :
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated
23.01.2019 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Moradabad.
2. In this case, order dated 31.03.2017 was passed u/s. 206C(6A) of the Act by the ITO-TDS, Moradabad for the assessment year 2010-11 by imposing the total tax liability of Rs. 8,13,688/- and assessed the income on the same amount.
In Appeal, there is a delay of 350 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.
CIT(A), Ld. CIT(A) noted the following submission of the assessee:-
“There was a delay of 350 days and it was due to the fact that order was served on D.M. Office and which was not conveyed to mining Officer Mr. Narender Kumar. It came to his knowledge in September, 2017 and due to the fact that the time was consumed in empanelment and appointment of 2 | P a g e counsel. That further the delay was due to the procedure of online registration for filing appeal.”
Ld. CIT(A) further noted the following submissions of the assessee:- ‘the judgement was served to the office of District Magistrate, Budaun and which was not conveyed to the Mining Officer Mr. Narendra Kumar. The Mining Officer had joined the post in January, 2021 and due to disc slip he went on a medical leave and re-joined the office in March, 2017. The Mining Officer had also had a meeting with the Ld. ITO(TDS) and thereafter it came to his knowledge that various cases related to TCS of Miniing Office, Budaun were pending before the Income Tax Department. Thereafter, Mining Officer enquired and searched for all the noticed and judgments that had been received both at DM Office, Budaun as well as conveyed / transferred to his office i.e. Mining Office, Budaun. Further, there was no counsel empaneled or appointed by DM Compound, Budaun for filing, preparing and presentation of appeal before the designated Authorities of Income Tax Department.”
Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced, did not condone the delay by dismissing the appeal being time barred.
4. Against the above order, assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.
5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice of hearing, hence, we are proceeding exparte qua the assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.
6. Upon careful consideration, we find that reasonable cause has been attributed by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal, which has occurred due to communication gap and time taken for empanelment and appointment of counsel and other related issues. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay in dispute before the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby condoned. Accordingly, we remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the 3 | P a g e assessee and pass a speaking order. Ld. DR did not have any objection to the said proposition.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15.05.2025. (VIMAL KUMAR) (SHAMIM YAHYA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
SRBHATNAGAR