Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
आदेश/Order
Per Bench:
These are the appeals preferred by the assessee against the common order dated 31.05.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)], Chandigarh in respect of the orders passed u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act,1961 for respective quarters for late filing of the TDS Returns.
The appeals are time barred by one day. The assessee has filed an affidavit wherein the reasons for delay of one day in filing the present appeals has been explained.
Considering the above reasons and the shortness of the period of delay, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned common order of the ld. CIT(A) and has
ITAs 1110 to 1124/CHD/2018 Page 2 of 3
submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the
assessee in-limine on the ground of being barred by limitation that the
ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated on the merits of the appeals. The ld.
Counsel has further invited our attention to para 4 of the impugned
order wherein the ld. CIT(A) has mentioned that intimations u/s 200A
were by e-mail to the assessee and that the same being the valid
service and the appeals filed by the assessee were late with the delay
ranging from 3 months to 20 months. Hence, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed
the appeals being barred by limitation. The ld. Counsel has produced
the affidavit of Shri Yogeshwar Sahdev, Director of the assessee
company wherein it has been deposed that the assessee was not aware
of these intimations served on the assessee through e-mail. That due
to certain technical reasons, those e-mails were not received/looked
into by the assessee. That it was only when the ITO (TDS) issued
demand notice that the assessee enquired about the intimations and
as suggested by the ITO (TDS), the orders were downloaded from the
website of the Department and thereafter, immediately the respective
appeals were filed before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel, therefore,
has submitted that there was no intentional act on the part of the
assessee in not filing the appeals within the limitation period before
the CIT(A) but the delay was due to aforesaid reasons. He, therefore,
has submitted that the delay, if any in filing the appeals before the
CIT(A) be condoned and the ld. CIT(A) be directed to adjudicate the
appeals of the assessee on merits.
After considering the rival submissions, in our view, the assessee
has explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the
CIT(A). Admittedly the intimations u/s 200A of the Act were not
served on the assessee physically but only in electronic form and the
ITAs 1110 to 1124/CHD/2018 Page 3 of 3
assessee has explained that due to certain reasons, it could not access
the e-mails. In our view the interest of justice will be well served if the
delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) is condoned and the
appeals of the assessee be adjudicated on merits. Accordingly, we set
aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A), condone the delay, if any in
filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and direct the ld. CIT(A) to
adjudicate the appeals of the assessee on merits in accordance with
law.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as
allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10.01.2019. Sd/- Sd/-
(अ�नपूणा� गु�ता) (संजय गग�) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG ) लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member “Poonam” आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File 6.
आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar