CUTTACK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, TDS-II, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 130/CTK/2017Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 April 2018AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding reasonable cause due to the assessee being a government functionary requiring approvals. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed it to adjudicate the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Cuttack Municipal Corporation, failed to deduct tax at source on certain payments. The Assessing Officer imposed a demand of Rs. 13,64,474/- under sections 201(1)/201(1A) for this non-deduction. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay in filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable, and if so, whether the appeal should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri T.K.Agarwalla, aR
For Respondent: Shri A. Tigga, DR
Hearing: 26/04Pronounced: 26/04

1 ITA No .130/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 09- 201 0

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.130/CTK/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-2010

Cuttack Muncipal Vs. ACIT(TDS-II), Corporation, Choudhury Bhubaneswar. Bazar, Cuttack PAN/GIR No.BBNCO 0195 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri T.K.Agarwalla, aR Revenue by : Shri A. Tigga, DR

Date of Hearing : 26/04/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 26/04/ 2018

O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the

CIT(A), Cuttack dated 18.3.2016 for the assessment year 2009-2010.

2.

The appeal filed by the assessee society is barred by limitation by

303 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition dated 8.3.2018

supported by affidavit for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. After

going through the condonation petition, we find that the assessee had

reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Ld

D.R. did not have any objection for condoning the delay. We, therefore,

condone the delay of 303 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and

admit the appeal for hearing.

2 ITA No .130/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 09- 201 0

3.

The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in

confirming the demand of Rs.13,64,474/- raised u/s.201(1)/201(1A) of

the Income Tax act, 1961.

4.

The facts in brief are that the Assessing Officer found that the

assessee deductor had failed to deduct tax at source at the time of

making payment to the various persons/concerns. The Assessing Officer

required the assessee to explain as to why it shall not be treated as an

assessee in default in terms of provisions of section 201(1) of the I.T.Act.

After considering the submission of the assessee, the Assessing Officer

has imposed Rs.13,64,474/- for non-deduction of tax u/s.201(1)/201(1A)

of the Act.

5.

Before the CIT(A), the assessee did not file appeal within the

stipulated period. It was submitted by the assessee that the assessee is

an urban local body and functionary of the State Government and for

every stage of proceedings, it has to obtain approval and clearance

process of which is a cumbersome affair and takes much time and,

therefore, there was delay in filing the appeal. The above explanation of

the assessee did not find favour by the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal

of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing the appeal.

6.

Before us, ld A.R. submitted that sufficient opportunities have not

been allowed to the assessee to furnish the details as regards non-

deduction of tax. The contention of ld A.R. of the assessee is that the

3 ITA No .130/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 09- 201 0

matter may be restored back to the file of the Assessing officer with the

direction to verify the records and to ascertain whether any deduction is

at all required under the respective provisions of Income tax Act.

7.

On the other hand, ld D.R. supported the orders of lower

authorities.

8.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower

authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the

Assessing Officer has imposed Rs.13,64,474/- for non-deduction of tax

u/s.201(1/201(1A) of the Act from the payments made to various parties.

9.

As the assessee did not file appeal within the stipulated period, the

CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal and did not

adjudicate the appeal on merits.

10.

It was the contention of ld A.R. of the assessee that the assessee is

an urban local body and functionary of the State Government and for

every stage of proceedings, it had to obtain approval of the State

Government. As there was delay in obtaining approval of Government by

the assessee, the assessee filed the appeal beyond the prescribe period.

We find force in the submission of the ld A.R. of the assessee and in order

to render substantial justice, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and

direct to condone the delay and adjudicate the issue on merits after

allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4 ITA No .130/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 09- 201 0

11.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced on 26 /04/2018. Sd/- sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 26 /04/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Cuttack Muncipal The Appellant : Corporation, Choudhury Bazar, Cuttack 2. The respondent: ACIT(TDS-II), Bhubaneswar. 3. The CIT(A)- Cuttack 4. Pr.CIT- Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack BY ORDER, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →