STRONGBUILD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIR ITO TDS WD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders dated 13.12.2024 and 17.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18 respectively, in relation to processing of tax deducted of source assessee for assessm 1. THE ORDE In the facts appellate ord Income - tax without juris statutory prov accordance w WITHOUT PR 2. NATURAL 2.1 The Ld. adequate opp the appellate 2.2 It is subm case, and in l illegal, as the Justice. 3. EX-PARTE 3.1 The Ld. C 3.2 While doi attendance / Appellant / b or intentional. 3.3 It is subm case, and in l WITHOUT PR 4. CONDONA 4.1 The Ld. condoning the 4.2 It is subm case, and in l Strongbuil ITA Nos. 66

quarterly returns. The ground ment year 2015-16 are reproduce
ER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURI and the circumstances of the case, an der framed by the Additional / Joint Com
(Appeals), Udaipur, ['Ld. CIT (A)] is ba iction, as the same is framed in b visions and the scheme and as otherwise with the REJUDICE TO THE ABOVE
JUSTICE
CIT (A) erred in not granting proper, s portunity of being heard to the Appellant order.
mitted that, in the facts and the circums law, the appellate order so framed be he e same is framed in breach of the princip
E ORDER
CIT (A) erred in passing the order ex - parte ng so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate non-reply was for the reasons not attrib beyond the control of the Appellant and .
mitted that in the facts and the circums law, no such action was called for.
REJUDICE TO THE ABOVE
ATION OF DELAY
CIT (A) erred in not admitting the ap e delay.
mitted that, in the facts and the circums law, no such action was called for.
lt Construction Pvt. Ltd
2
620 & 6621/MUM/2024
s raised by the ed as under:
I ICTION d in law, the mmissioner of ad, illegal and breach of the e also is not in sufficient and while framing stances of the ld as bad and ples of Natural e.
e that the non- butable to the not deliberate stances of the ppeal and not stances of the WITHOUT PR
5. DISMISSA
5.1 The Ld.
adjudicated u
Act.
5.2 It is subm case and in la
WITHOUT PR
6. NON - EXI
6.1 In the fac
CIT (A) erred basis of Defau order u/s. 20
WITHOUT PR
7. ON MERIT
7.1 It is subm and in law, n for alleged sh deducted at s
7.2 In the fact
/ intimation s
7.3 Without p but not admit
/ interest, the law, is arbitra
2. Having examine to the processing ord that the assessee
Commissioner of In imposition of interes payment of TDS, as Strongbuil
ITA Nos. 66

REJUDICE TO THE ABOVE:
AL AS NOT ADJUDICTED
CIT (A) erred in dismissing the ap upon, in absence of a copy of the order u mitted that in the facts and the circums aw, no such action was called for.
REJUDICE TO THE ABOVE:
ISTENT ORDER cts and circumstances of the case and in in not cancelling the demand reflected ult Summary, as such demand was not b
1 of the Act.
REJUDICE TO THE ABOVE:
TS mitted that, in the facts and circumstance no order making the Appellant liable for hort deduction/short payment / late pa source was called for.
ts and circumstances of the case, and in so passed, if any, is bad and illegal.
prejudice to the above, in the alternativ tting - that the Appellant was to be made e computation of the same is not in accord ary and excessive.
ed the present matter concernin der of the quarterly TDS return preferred an appeal before ncome Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT( st amounting to Rs. 9,744/- s well as the levy of a fee am lt Construction Pvt. Ltd
3
620 & 6621/MUM/2024
ppeal as not u/s. 201 of the stances of the n law, the Ld.
merely on the backed by any es of the case tax / interest ayment of tax law, the order e, assuming - e liable for tax dance with the ng the challenge s, it is observed e the Learned
(A)] against the for the delayed mounting to Rs.

67,744/- for the be 234E of the Income-
Act"). The Ld. CIT(A), delay in the filing of of the date of passin order, and the date o
35 of the Income-tax instituting an appeal adjudicating upon t appeal, the Ld. CIT(A Supreme Court, whe appeals during the C appreciation of facts held the appeal to be “5. Decision
The facts o appellant ha the filing of by the appe order was p belatedly file had extende
15th March, appellant's c
March, 2020
within the s appeal as p may be conc considered d of appeal ag
Strongbuil
ITA Nos. 66

lated filing of the TDS return
-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter refe
, upon perusal of the relevant r the appeal, determining the sam ng of the order, the date of ser of filing of the appeal as reflect x Rules, 1962, which is the pres l before the appellate authority the matter for condonation of A) duly considered the decision erein an extension was granted
Covid-19 pandemic period. How and applicable legal provisions not maintainable, observing as n :
of the case and the grounds rais ave been considered carefully. There appeal for which no sufficient reason ellant. On perusal of the facts it is se passed on 15/01/2020 whereas the a ed on 12/09/2020. The Hon'ble Sup ed the due dates for filing of appeal st
, 2020 till May, 2022. It is noted case the due date for filing appeal is p
0 and therefore, appellant's case do aid time period of extension of time l per the Supreme Court judgement. T cluded that the appellant took a con decision at the relevant point of time f gainst the impugned order.
lt Construction Pvt. Ltd
4
620 & 6621/MUM/2024
n under Section erred to as "the records, noted a me on the basis rvice of the said ted in Form No.
scribed form for y. Further, while f delay in filing n of the Hon’ble for the filing of wever, upon due s, the Ld. CIT(A) under :
Hon'ble Sup
Vaijayantab
[2002] repor between del large delays further held liberally con
Strongbuil
ITA Nos. 66

nt has failed to justify the delay in fi n the instant case clearly demonstrat not prosecuted with due care.
ion 'sufficient cause' is not defined, b hich is beyond the control of the e aid of the section any cause which roaching the POs within time is use. In doing so, it is the test of reaso ircumstances which has to be applie not a cause is sufficient is to see whet avoided by the party by the exercise n. In other words, whether it is bona s nothing shall be deemed to be don faith which is not done with due
What may be sufficient cause in one ca n another. What is of essence is whe udent or reasonable man.
ufficient cause means that the party in a negligent manner but must nd not remained in active. Reliance is ent on Hon'ble High Court in the cas
ACIT(TS-817-HC-2023(MAD) dated 2
nt has failed to justify the inordina al. From the factual position which t a conscious and considered decision ssee at the relevant point of time for nst the impugned order. It is well-settl n must be made between a case wher e and where the delay is of few day delay in the instant case clearly de peal was not prosecuted with due care e of a routine delay and an inordinate preme Court in the case of Veda ai Baburao Patil vs.Shantaram Ba rted in 122 Taxman 114, has made a ays that are trivial and cases where i s had occurred. The Hon'ble Supr d that the cases of trivial delays h nsidered, however the cases of inordin lt Construction Pvt. Ltd
5
620 & 6621/MUM/2024
ling appeal.
tes that this but it means party. For prevents a considered onable man ed. The test ther it could of due care fide cause, ne bona fide e care and ase may be ether it was should not had acted s placed on se of M Sri
21.12.2023. ate delay in emerges it n was taken not filing of led law that re the delay ys only. The emonstrates e.
e delay, the abhai alias aburao Patil a distinction inordinately reme Court have to be nate delays have to be ap order of the H
"In exercising the courts sh must be mad and a case w former case, will be a rele approach bu arise and su and fast rule above detail no "sufficient ca presenting th settled law condonation succeed, the a condition ingredient is the appellan appellant, is therefore, no without any Considering is not in con
Act, and the delay in filin as not maint
3. Having heard th parties and upon per that before us the lea copy of the TDS rec official portal of the I observed that the or Strongbuil
ITA Nos. 66

approached cautiously. The relevant po
Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced g discretion, under section 5 of the Lim hould adopt a pragmatic approach. A de between a case where the delay is where the delay is of a few days. Whe the consideration of prejudice to the evant factor so the case calls for a mo ut in the latter case no such conside uch a case deserves a liberal approac e can be laid down in this regard." In led discussion, it is held that the ap ause" in terms of section 249(3) of the he appeal within the prescribed period w that an appellant is not entitl as a matter of right. For an ap e existence of sufficient cause is sine q precedent. It is manifestly eviden s woefully lacking in this belated app nt. Thus, the delay in filing the app s not considered as sufficient cause a ot condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is discussion on merits or on any other a the above discussion and facts, the a nformity with the provisions of Sec 24
ere is no sufficient cause for condona ng of the appeal, the present appeal is tainable.”
he rival submissions advanced b rusal of the material placed on arned counsel for the assessee h conciliation analysis, as downl
Income-tax Department. Upon v rder processing the TDS return lt Construction Pvt. Ltd
6
620 & 6621/MUM/2024
ortion of the as under: - mitation Act
A distinction s inordinate ereas in the e other side ore cautious eration may ch. No hard view of the ppellant has Act, for not d. It is well- led to the appellant to qua non and nt that this peal filed by peal by the and delay is s dismissed aspect.
appeal filed
49(2) of the ation of the s dismissed by the respective record, we find has submitted a oaded from the verification, it is n under Section 200A of the Act was account of interest
However, the assess order passed under S the Ld. CIT(A) has d the computation of adequately addressed has contended that raised due to the pro and, accordingly, con filing an appeal befor the computation of accordance with this delay was the Covid-
CIT(A) has not adjudi the present appeal. C in the interest of ju matter back to the fi the delay in filing th shall determine the necessary, proceed to with the law. The gr allowed for statistical
Strongbuil
ITA Nos. 66

s passed on 01.10.2015, raisin for delayed payment and levy ee has not furnished the origi
Section 200A of the Act. It is fur dismissed the appeal of the ass f delay in filing the appeal d. Before us, learned counsel f the assessee became aware ocessing of the TDS return only nsidered the date of service for re the Ld. CIT(A) on 31.01.2022
f delay in filing the appeal s timeline, and the only reason
-19 pandemic. It is further not icated upon the merits of the is Considering the factual matrix ustice, we find it appropriate le of the Ld. CIT(A) for a proper e appeal. Upon due verification issue of condonation of delay o decide the matter on its merit rounds raised by the assessee l purposes.
lt Construction Pvt. Ltd
7
620 & 6621/MUM/2024
ng a demand on y for late filing.
inal copy of the rther noted that sessee; however, has not been for the assessee of the demand y on 15.01.2020
r the purpose of 2. Consequently, was made in n cited for such ted that the Ld.
sues involved in of the case and to remand the r examination of n, the Ld. CIT(A) and, if deemed ts in accordance are accordingly

concerning the assessment yea earned Ld. CIT(A) has dismis und that the assessee did not fu r, nor was the same supplied b
, in the absence of such an orde e basis of the demand notice a he Income-tax Department. In rns are processed electronically
200A of the Income-tax Act, 19
Act") must have been made a ctronic means. If the assessee rder, the same must be ava ervers, and it is incumbent upo ch a copy. The Assessing Office n the interest of justice, we fin ter back to the file of the Ld essee to obtain a copy of the p of the Act, wherein the demand sessing Officer. In the event tha de such a copy to the assessee y steps to procure the same di nd thereafter proceed to decide law. Additionally, the issue of also be adjudicated upon by th lt Construction Pvt. Ltd
8
620 & 6621/MUM/2024
r 2017-18, it is ssed the appeal urnish a copy of by the Assessing er, preferred the available on the our considered y, the processing
961 (hereinafter available to the does not have a ailable with the on the Assessing er cannot evade d it appropriate
. CIT(A) with a processing order has been raised at the Assessing e, the Ld. CIT(A) irectly from the e the matter in f condonation of he Ld. CIT(A) in accordance with the the assessee are acco
5. In the result, th for statistical purpose
Order pronoun (KAVITHA RA
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 13/02/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Strongbuil
ITA Nos. 66

settled legal principles. The gro ordingly allowed for statistical pu he both the appeals of the asses es.
ced in the open Court on 13/0
-
AJAGOPAL)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu lt Construction Pvt. Ltd
9
620 & 6621/MUM/2024
ounds raised by urposes.
ssee are allowed
02/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai