TRANSLINE TECHNOLOGIES P LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, TDS, CPC, GHAZIABAD

At the outset, it was brought to our notice by the Ld. Authorized Representative (in short Ld. AR) that though the order passed by the Ld. TDS CPC, was dated 28.09.2016, no order was communicated to the assessee; that the assessee downloaded it on 12.12.2018 and, therefore, the date of communication has to be taken as 12.12.2018. On this premise, the Ld. AR submitted that reckoning the limitation for filing the appeal shall be from 12.12.2018. The appeals preferred are, therefore, are well within the time and the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the same in proper perspective, but went of recording his opinion that in the case of TDS returns, the Department has digital system for proessing of TDS returns and on processing of the same the intimation containing the demand, if any, gets automatically communicated to assessee through e- mail or message. The assessee, therefore, could have downloaded the said intimation immediately after said order was passed.

The Ld. CIT(A() refused to condone the delay if any in this matter and proceeded to dismissed the appeals exparte, holding that there are no valid grounds to condone the delay.

Ld. AR submitted that no communication was received by the assessee immediately after passing of the order dated 29.08.2016, but it is only after verifying from the portal on 12.12.2018, the assessee came to know that such an order was passed and, therefore, downloaded the order and filed the appeals well within the period of limitation from ITA.No.543/Del/2020 & Ors. Assessment Year: 2013-14 to 2015-16 12.12.2018 and that the Ld. CIT(A) should have held the issue relating to limitation in favour of the assessee’s because, it is not the case against the assessee that any communication order dated 29.08.2016 was served on the assessee and contemplated under the law.

The Ld. DR justified the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the system provided intimation to the assessee by way of digital means immediately after processing of the TDS return and therefore it is not open for the assessee to contend otherwise and to say that it is only on 12.12.2018 the assessee came to know of passing of the order and the limitation has reckoned from said dated.

We have gone through the record in the light of the submission made by assessee. The fact of the non-service of order dated 29.08.2016 stands unrebutted for it is not contended otherwise by the Revenue or proved by producing any material to show the service of such order on the assessee. Further, it is an important factor to note that the assessee does not stand to gain by filing the appeal with considerable delay when the demand was raised under law. Considering this fact, we do not find any reason not to accept the explanation of the assessee in filing the appeal on 31.12.2018. Having regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct, public and private business in their relations to the facts of this particular case, we are of the considered opinion that explanation offered by the assessee is an acceptable one. Further, when the technicalities are pitted against the substantial justice, the former must give way to the later. With this view of the matter, while accepting the contention of the assessee we condone the delay, if any, in filing these appeals.

Both the parties agreed that impugned order has to be set-aside and all the appeals have to be remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for disposing them of on merits, after affording an opportunity to the assessee. We accept the same and order accordingly.

In the result, all appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only.