Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals were filed against orders of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the assessee's appeals for AY 2015-16 and 2017-18 concerning processing of TDS returns. The primary issue for AY 2015-16 was the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which was dismissed as not maintainable. For AY 2017-18, the appeal was dismissed for non-furnishing of the processing order.
Held
The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate and not supported by sufficient cause, thus not condoned, and the appeal was dismissed. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) to obtain the processing order and decide the appeal on merits and condonation of delay.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was condonable, and whether the dismissal of appeal for non-furnishing of processing order was justified.
Sections Cited
200A, 234E, 249(3), 249(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL
THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order framed by appellate order framed by the Additional / Joint Commissioner of the Additional / Joint Commissioner of Income - tax (Appeals), Udaipur, ['Ld. CIT (A)] is bad, illegal and tax (Appeals), Udaipur, ['Ld. CIT (A)] is bad, illegal and tax (Appeals), Udaipur, ['Ld. CIT (A)] is bad, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions and the scheme and as otherwise also is not in statutory provisions and the scheme and as otherwise also is not in statutory provisions and the scheme and as otherwise also is not in accordance with the accordance with the WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 2. NATURAL JUSTICE 2. NATURAL JUSTICE 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not granting proper, sufficient and The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not granting proper, sufficient and The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not granting proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while framing being heard to the Appellant while framing the appellate order. the appellate order. 2.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circum It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the stances of the case, and in law, the appellate order so framed be held as bad and case, and in law, the appellate order so framed be held as bad and case, and in law, the appellate order so framed be held as bad and illegal, as the same is framed in breach of illegal, as the same is framed in breach of the principles of Natural the principles of Natural Justice. 3. EX-PARTE ORDER PARTE ORDER 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the order ex The Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the order ex - parte. parte. 3.2 While doing While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the non so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the non- attendance / non attendance / non-reply was for the reasons not attributable to the reply was for the reasons not attributable to the Appellant / beyond the control of the Appellant and not deliberate Appellant / beyond the control of the Appellant and not deliberate Appellant / beyond the control of the Appellant and not deliberate or intentional. or intentional. 3.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circum It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the stances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for. case, and in law, no such action was called for. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 4. CONDONATION OF DELAY 4. CONDONATION OF DELAY 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not admitting the appeal and not 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not admitting the appeal and not 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not admitting the appeal and not condoning the delay. condoning the delay. 4.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circums 4.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circums 4.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for. case, and in law, no such action was called for.
Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd 3 & 6621/MUM/2024 Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 5. DISMISSAL AS NOT ADJUDICTED 5. DISMISSAL AS NOT ADJUDICTED 5.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal as not 5.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal as not 5.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal as not adjudicated upon, in absence of a copy of the order u/s. 201 of the adjudicated upon, in absence of a copy of the order u/s. 201 of the adjudicated upon, in absence of a copy of the order u/s. 201 of the Act. 5.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, no such case and in law, no such action was called for. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 6. NON - EXISTENT ORDER EXISTENT ORDER 6.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 6.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 6.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in CIT (A) erred in not cancelling the demand reflected merely on the not cancelling the demand reflected merely on the basis of Default Summary, as such demand was not backed by any basis of Default Summary, as such demand was not backed by any basis of Default Summary, as such demand was not backed by any order u/s. 201 of the Act. order u/s. 201 of the Act. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 7. ON MERITS 7. ON MERITS 7.1 It is submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case 7.1 It is submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case 7.1 It is submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no order making the Appellant liable for tax / interest d in law, no order making the Appellant liable for tax / interest d in law, no order making the Appellant liable for tax / interest for alleged short deduction/short payment / late payment of tax for alleged short deduction/short payment / late payment of tax for alleged short deduction/short payment / late payment of tax deducted at source was called for. deducted at source was called for. 7.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the order 7.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the order 7.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the order / intimation so passe / intimation so passed, if any, is bad and illegal. 7.3 Without prejudice to the above, in the alternative, assuming 7.3 Without prejudice to the above, in the alternative, assuming 7.3 Without prejudice to the above, in the alternative, assuming - but not admitting but not admitting - that the Appellant was to be made liable for tax that the Appellant was to be made liable for tax / interest, the computation of the same is not in accordance with the / interest, the computation of the same is not in accordance with the / interest, the computation of the same is not in accordance with the law, is arbitrary a law, is arbitrary and excessive.
Having examined the present matter concerning the challenge Having examined the present matter concerning the challenge Having examined the present matter concerning the challenge to the processing order of the quarterly TDS returns, it is observed to the processing order of the quarterly TDS returns, it is observed to the processing order of the quarterly TDS returns, it is observed that the assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned that the assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned that the assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] against the imposition of interest amounting to Rs. 9,744/ on of interest amounting to Rs. 9,744/- for the delayed payment of TDS, as well as the levy of a fee amounting to Rs. payment of TDS, as well as the levy of a fee amounting to Rs. payment of TDS, as well as the levy of a fee amounting to Rs.
Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd 4 & 6621/MUM/2024 Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 67,744/- for the belated filing of the TDS return under Section for the belated filing of the TDS return under Section for the belated filing of the TDS return under Section 234E of the Income- -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Ld. CIT(A), upon perusal of the relevant records, noted a he Ld. CIT(A), upon perusal of the relevant records, noted a he Ld. CIT(A), upon perusal of the relevant records, noted a delay in the filing of the appeal, determining the same on the basis delay in the filing of the appeal, determining the same on the basis delay in the filing of the appeal, determining the same on the basis of the date of passing of the order, the date of service of the said of the date of passing of the order, the date of service of the said of the date of passing of the order, the date of service of the said order, and the date of filing of the appeal as reflected in Form No. order, and the date of filing of the appeal as reflected order, and the date of filing of the appeal as reflected 35 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which is the prescribed form for tax Rules, 1962, which is the prescribed form for tax Rules, 1962, which is the prescribed form for instituting an appeal before the appellate authority. Further, while instituting an appeal before the appellate authority. instituting an appeal before the appellate authority. adjudicating upon the matter adjudicating upon the matter for condonation of delay in filing for condonation of delay in filing appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) duly considered the d , the Ld. CIT(A) duly considered the decision of the Hon’ble ecision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein an extension was granted for the filing of Supreme Court, wherein an extension was granted for the filing of Supreme Court, wherein an extension was granted for the filing of appeals during the Covid appeals during the Covid-19 pandemic period. However, upon due . However, upon due appreciation of facts and applicable legal provisions, the Ld. CIT(A) appreciation of facts and applicable legal provisions, the Ld. CIT(A) appreciation of facts and applicable legal provisions, the Ld. CIT(A) held the appeal to be not maintain e appeal to be not maintainable, observing as under : observing as under :
“5. Decision : “5. Decision : The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the appellant have been considered carefully. There is delay in appellant have been considered carefully. There is delay in appellant have been considered carefully. There is delay in the filing of appeal for which no sufficient reason was given the filing of appeal for which no sufficient reason was given the filing of appeal for which no sufficient reason was given by the appellant. On perusal of the fac by the appellant. On perusal of the facts it is seen that the ts it is seen that the order was passed on 15/01/2020 whereas the appeal was order was passed on 15/01/2020 whereas the appeal was order was passed on 15/01/2020 whereas the appeal was belatedly filed on 12/09/2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court belatedly filed on 12/09/2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court belatedly filed on 12/09/2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had extended the due dates for filing of appeal starting from had extended the due dates for filing of appeal starting from had extended the due dates for filing of appeal starting from 15th March, 2020 till May, 2022. It is noted that in the 15th March, 2020 till May, 2022. It is noted that in the 15th March, 2020 till May, 2022. It is noted that in the appellant's case the due date for filing appeal is prior to 15th ellant's case the due date for filing appeal is prior to 15th ellant's case the due date for filing appeal is prior to 15th March, 2020 and therefore, appellant's case does not fall March, 2020 and therefore, appellant's case does not fall March, 2020 and therefore, appellant's case does not fall within the said time period of extension of time line in filing within the said time period of extension of time line in filing within the said time period of extension of time line in filing appeal as per the Supreme Court judgement. Therefore, it appeal as per the Supreme Court judgement. Therefore, it appeal as per the Supreme Court judgement. Therefore, it may be conclude may be concluded that the appellant took a conscious and d that the appellant took a conscious and considered decision at the relevant point of time for not filing considered decision at the relevant point of time for not filing considered decision at the relevant point of time for not filing of appeal against the impugned order. of appeal against the impugned order.
Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd 5 & 6621/MUM/2024 Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 The appellant has failed to justify the delay in filing appeal. The appellant has failed to justify the delay in filing appeal. The appellant has failed to justify the delay in filing appeal. The delay in the instant case clearly demonstr The delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates that this ates that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. appeal was not prosecuted with due care. The expression 'sufficient cause' is not defined, but it means The expression 'sufficient cause' is not defined, but it means The expression 'sufficient cause' is not defined, but it means a cause which is beyond the control of the party. For a cause which is beyond the control of the party. For a cause which is beyond the control of the party. For invoking the aid of the section any cause which prevents a invoking the aid of the section any cause which prevents a invoking the aid of the section any cause which prevents a person approaching the P person approaching the POs within time is considered Os within time is considered sufficient cause. In doing so, it is the test of reasonable man sufficient cause. In doing so, it is the test of reasonable man sufficient cause. In doing so, it is the test of reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied. The test in normal circumstances which has to be applied. The test in normal circumstances which has to be applied. The test whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it could whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it could whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exe have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care rcise of due care and attention. In other words, whether it is bona fide cause, and attention. In other words, whether it is bona fide cause, and attention. In other words, whether it is bona fide cause, inasmuch as nothing shall be deemed to be done bona fide inasmuch as nothing shall be deemed to be done bona fide inasmuch as nothing shall be deemed to be done bona fide or in good faith which is not done with due care and or in good faith which is not done with due care and or in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. What may be sufficient cause in one case may be attention. What may be sufficient cause in one case may be attention. What may be sufficient cause in one case may be otherwise in another. What is of essence is whether it was se in another. What is of essence is whether it was se in another. What is of essence is whether it was an act of prudent or reasonable man. an act of prudent or reasonable man. The term sufficient cause means that the party should not The term sufficient cause means that the party should not The term sufficient cause means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner but must had acted have acted in a negligent manner but must had acted have acted in a negligent manner but must had acted diligently and not remained in active. Reliance is placed diligently and not remained in active. Reliance is placed diligently and not remained in active. Reliance is placed on the judgement on Hon'ble High Court in the case of M Sri the judgement on Hon'ble High Court in the case of M Sri the judgement on Hon'ble High Court in the case of M Sri Nivasulu vs ACIT(TS Nivasulu vs ACIT(TS-817-HC-2023(MAD) dated 21.12.2023. 2023(MAD) dated 21.12.2023. The appellant has failed to justify the inordinate delay in The appellant has failed to justify the inordinate delay in The appellant has failed to justify the inordinate delay in filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges it filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges it filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges it appears that a conscio appears that a conscious and considered decision was taken us and considered decision was taken by the assessee at the relevant point of time for not filing of by the assessee at the relevant point of time for not filing of by the assessee at the relevant point of time for not filing of appeal against the impugned order. It is well appeal against the impugned order. It is well-settled law that settled law that a distinction must be made between a case where the delay a distinction must be made between a case where the delay a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and where the delay is inordinate and where the delay is of few days only. The is of few days only. The inordinate delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates inordinate delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates inordinate delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. On the issue of a routine delay and an inordinate delay, the On the issue of a routine delay and an inordinate delay, the On the issue of a routine delay and an inordinate delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil vs.Shantaram Baburao Patil abai Baburao Patil vs.Shantaram Baburao Patil abai Baburao Patil vs.Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] reported in 122 Taxman 114, has made a distinction [2002] reported in 122 Taxman 114, has made a distinction [2002] reported in 122 Taxman 114, has made a distinction between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the cases of trivial further held that the cases of trivial delays have to be delays have to be liberally considered, however the cases of inordinate delays liberally considered, however the cases of inordinate delays liberally considered, however the cases of inordinate delays Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd 6 & 6621/MUM/2024 Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 have to be approached cautiously. The relevant portion of the have to be approached cautiously. The relevant portion of the have to be approached cautiously. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under: order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under: order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under: - "In exercising discretion, under section 5 of the Lim "In exercising discretion, under section 5 of the Lim "In exercising discretion, under section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may approach but in the latter case no such consideration may approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard." In view of the and fast rule can be laid down in this regard." In view of the and fast rule can be laid down in this regard." In view of the above detailed d above detailed discussion, it is held that the appellant has iscussion, it is held that the appellant has no "sufficient cause" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not "sufficient cause" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not "sufficient cause" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well- settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation as a matter of condonation as a matter of right. For an appellant to right. For an appellant to succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this ingredient is woefully lacking in this belated appeal filed by ingredient is woefully lacking in this belated appeal filed by ingredient is woefully lacking in this belated appeal filed by the appellant. Thus, the delay in filing the the appellant. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal by the appeal by the appellant, is not considered as sufficient cause and delay is appellant, is not considered as sufficient cause and delay is appellant, is not considered as sufficient cause and delay is therefore, not condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed therefore, not condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed therefore, not condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any discussion on merits or on any other aspect. without any discussion on merits or on any other aspect. without any discussion on merits or on any other aspect. Considering the above discussion and facts, the appeal file Considering the above discussion and facts, the appeal file Considering the above discussion and facts, the appeal filed is not in conformity with the provisions of Sec 249(2) of the is not in conformity with the provisions of Sec 249(2) of the is not in conformity with the provisions of Sec 249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.” as not maintainable.”
Having heard the rival submissions advanced Having heard the rival submissions advanced by the respective by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, we find parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, we find parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, we find that before us the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted a that before us the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted a that before us the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted a copy of the TDS reconciliation analysis, as downloaded from the copy of the TDS reconciliation analysis, as downloaded from the copy of the TDS reconciliation analysis, as downloaded from the official portal of the Income official portal of the Income-tax Department. Upon verification, it is rtment. Upon verification, it is observed that the order processing the TDS return under Section observed that the order processing the TDS return under Section observed that the order processing the TDS return under Section Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd 7 & 6621/MUM/2024 Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 200A of the Act was passed on 01.10.2015, raising a demand on 200A of the Act was passed on 01.10.2015, raising a demand on 200A of the Act was passed on 01.10.2015, raising a demand on account of interest for delayed payment and levy for late filing. account of interest for delayed payment and levy for late filing. account of interest for delayed payment and levy for late filing. However, the assessee has not f However, the assessee has not furnished the original copy of the urnished the original copy of the order passed under Section 200A of the Act. It is further noted that order passed under Section 200A of the Act. It is further noted that order passed under Section 200A of the Act. It is further noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee; however, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee; however, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee; however, the computation of delay in filing the appeal has not been the computation of delay in filing the appeal has not been the computation of delay in filing the appeal has not been adequately addressed. Before adequately addressed. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee us, learned counsel for the assessee has contended that the assessee became aware of the demand has contended that the assessee became aware of the demand has contended that the assessee became aware of the demand raised due to the processing of the TDS return only on 15.01.2020 raised due to the processing of the TDS return only on 15.01.2020 raised due to the processing of the TDS return only on 15.01.2020 and, accordingly, considered the date of service for the purpose of and, accordingly, considered the date of service for the purpose of and, accordingly, considered the date of service for the purpose of filing an appeal before t filing an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 31.01.2022. Consequently, he Ld. CIT(A) on 31.01.2022. Consequently, the computation of delay in filing the appeal was made in the computation of delay in filing the appeal was made in the computation of delay in filing the appeal was made in accordance with this timeline, and the only reason cited for such accordance with this timeline, and the only reason cited for such accordance with this timeline, and the only reason cited for such delay was the Covid- -19 pandemic. It is further noted that the Ld. 19 pandemic. It is further noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudica CIT(A) has not adjudicated upon the merits of the issues involved in ted upon the merits of the issues involved in the present appeal. Considering the factual matrix of the case and the present appeal. Considering the factual matrix of the case and the present appeal. Considering the factual matrix of the case and in the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to remand the in the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to remand the in the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a proper examination of matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a proper examination of matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a proper examination of the delay in filing the appeal. Upon due verification, the Ld. CIT(A) y in filing the appeal. Upon due verification, the Ld. CIT(A) y in filing the appeal. Upon due verification, the Ld. CIT(A) shall determine the issue of condonation of delay and, if deemed shall determine the issue of condonation of delay and, if deemed shall determine the issue of condonation of delay and, if deemed necessary, proceed to decide the matter on its merits in accordance necessary, proceed to decide the matter on its merits in accordance necessary, proceed to decide the matter on its merits in accordance with the law. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordin The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly The grounds raised by the assessee are accordin allowed for statistical purposes. allowed for statistical purposes.
Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd 8 & 6621/MUM/2024 Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024
In the matter concerning the assessment year 2017 In the matter concerning the assessment year 2017 In the matter concerning the assessment year 2017-18, it is observed that the learned observed that the learned Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal has dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground that the assessee did not furnish a copy of primarily on the ground that the assessee did not furnish a copy of primarily on the ground that the assessee did not furnish a copy of the processing order, nor was the same supplied by the Assessing the processing order, nor was the same supplied by the Assessing the processing order, nor was the same supplied by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, in the absence of such an order, preferred the Officer. The assessee, in the absence of such an order, preferred the Officer. The assessee, in the absence of such an order, preferred the appeal solely on the basis appeal solely on the basis of the demand notice available on the of the demand notice available on the TRACES portal of the Income TRACES portal of the Income-tax Department. In our considered In our considered view, since TDS returns are processed electronically, the processing view, since TDS returns are processed electronically, the processing view, since TDS returns are processed electronically, the processing order under Section 200A of the Income order under Section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the A referred to as "the Act") must have been made available to the ct") must have been made available to the assessee through electronic means. If the assessee does not have a assessee through electronic means. If the assessee does not have a assessee through electronic means. If the assessee does not have a copy of the said order, the same must be available with the copy of the said order, the same must be available with the copy of the said order, the same must be available with the Department on its servers, and it is incumbent upon the Assessing Department on its servers, and it is incumbent upon the Assessing Department on its servers, and it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to provide such a copy. The Assessing Officer cannot evade ch a copy. The Assessing Officer cannot evade ch a copy. The Assessing Officer cannot evade this responsibility. In the interest of justice, we find it appropriate In the interest of justice, we find it appropriate In the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to obtain a copy of the processing order direction to the assessee to obtain a copy of the processing order direction to the assessee to obtain a copy of the processing order under Section 200A of the Act, wherein the demand has been raised ction 200A of the Act, wherein the demand has been raised ction 200A of the Act, wherein the demand has been raised by the respective Assessing Officer. In the event that the Assessing by the respective Assessing Officer. In the event that the Assessing by the respective Assessing Officer. In the event that the Assessing Officer fails to provide such a copy to the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) Officer fails to provide such a copy to the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) Officer fails to provide such a copy to the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) shall take necessary steps to procure the same directly from the shall take necessary steps to procure the same directly from shall take necessary steps to procure the same directly from Assessing Officer and thereafter proceed to decide the matter in Assessing Officer and thereafter proceed to decide the matter in Assessing Officer and thereafter proceed to decide the matter in accordance with the law. accordance with the law. Additionally, the issue of condonation of Additionally, the issue of condonation of delay, if any, shall also be adjudicated upon by the Ld. CIT(A) in delay, if any, shall also be adjudicated upon by the Ld. CIT(A) in delay, if any, shall also be adjudicated upon by the Ld. CIT(A) in Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd Strongbuilt Construction Pvt. Ltd 9 & 6621/MUM/2024 Nos. 6620 & 6621/MUM/2024 accordance with the settled legal principles. accordance with the settled legal principles. The grounds raised by ounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on nounced in the open Court on 13/02/2025. /02/2025.