Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee HUF declared interest income but TDS was deducted under the individual PAN, leading to denial of credit. A rectification petition under section 154 was unsuccessful, causing a significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee explained this delay as being due to a bona fide belief that the mistake would be rectified.
Held
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay, considering it was a pursuit of alternate remedy in good faith. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) did not fully consider the issue of TDS credit under section 199. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable due to a bona fide belief and pursuit of alternate remedies, and whether TDS credit was correctly considered by the lower authorities.
Sections Cited
143(1), 154, 199
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
All these appeals are filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Kolkata vide order dated 27/06/2024 for the assessment year 2015-16 to 2018-19.
We have heard the submissions of the learned AR and the learned DR. We have also gone through the affidavit explaining the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and the supporting documents.
- 1162/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4
The assessee HUF filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 declaring interest income from fixed deposits. The TDS, however, was deducted under the individual PAN instead of the HUF PAN. This mistake resulted in denial of TDS credit by CPC while issuing intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee filed a rectification petition under section 154 of the Act. However, the rectification order dated 16- 12-2019 repeated the same mistake. Since the error continued, the assessee had no alternate remedy except to approach the appellate authority. Therefore, the appeal was filed before the learned CIT(A). However, in this process, there is a delay of 973 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT-A. The explanation given is that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that the mistake would be corrected in section 154 of the Act proceedings. Since rectification was not granted, the appeal was filed immediately after passing of the order under section 154 of the Act. Thus, the delay was not deliberate or intentional but caused by reasons beyond the assessee’s control.
We find merit in the explanation. The assessee pursued the alternate remedy of rectification under section 154 of the Act in good faith, and only when relief was denied, approached the appellate authority. This demonstrates diligence and bona fide conduct. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471) has laid down that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice must be preferred.
On merits, we note that the learned CIT(A) did not fully consider the issue of granting credit of TDS under section 199 of the Act in the .
- 1162/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 light of the judicial precedents. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after giving due opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Coming to other appeals of the assessee in to 1162/ Bang/ 2025 for the assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19
The facts of the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed above, therefore, respectfully following the same, , we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after giving due opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the combined result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.