Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE
Before: Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM
O R D E R Per George George K, JM : These three appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders passed by the learned CIT(A)-3. The relevant assessment years are 2013-2014, 2014- 2015 and 2015-2016.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even though the case was adjourned on the last occasion at the specific request of the Representative of the assessee. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeals, without the presence of the assessee.
There is a delay of 63 days in filing the appeal for the assessment year 2013-2014 and delay of 210 days in filing the appeals for assessment years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. The assessee has filed a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay.
We have heard the learned DR on the preliminary issue. Having regard to the submissions made by the assessee in the 2 M/s.Elixir Enterprises and Hotels Pvt.Ltd. petition for condonation of delay, we are of the view that there is reasonable cause in filing these appeals before the Tribunal belatedly and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit these appeals for adjudication.
Common issue is raised in these appeals and they pertain to the same assessee, hence these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidate order. The solitary issue raised in these appeals is regarding levy of fee u/s 234E of the I.T.Act.
We have heard the learned DR and perused the record. We noticed that the assessee has filed appeals for each of the assessment years in respect of demand raised u/s 200A of the Act for belated filing of statement of TDS in Form No.24Q / 26Q for various quarters. In some of the cases, the assessee has filed rectification petition, based on which the demand has been reduced. The assessee has filed appeals before the learned CIT(A) challenging the demand still retained in rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act in some of the cases and against intimations issued u/s 200A of the Act in other cases. The learned CIT(A) initially expressed the view that the assessee should have filed separate appeal in respect of each of the demand. It appears that the assessee made a request to the learned CIT(A) to consider the orders passed u/s 154 of the Act, as the relevant orders. The said plea of the assessee was accepted by the learned CIT(A), and accordingly, the learned CIT(A) observed that the order passed u/s 200A of the Act are not being considered for the purpose of the appeal.
6.1 It is pertinent to note that, as observed earlier, some of the orders appealed by the assessee are the orders passed u/s 200A of the Act, against which no rectification petition has been filed by the assessee. We noticed that the learned CIT(A) has not taken note of this aspect.
6.2 The learned CIT(A), after accepting the plea of the assessee to consider the order passed u/s 154 of the Act, has taken the view that no demand was raised in the order passed u/s 154 of the Act, and hence, the cause of action shall arise only in respect of orders passed u/s 200A of the Act and not in respect of the order passed u/s 154 of the Act. By observing so, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee filed for the three years under consideration, without adjudicating the grounds on merits.
6.3 The CIT(A) is not correct in holding that no demand has arisen pursuant to 154 order. A perusal of the order passed u/s 154 of the Act, would show that the demand raised u/s 200A(3) has been reduced pursuant to 154 order passed. For example, for Q2 for F.Y.2012-2013, pursuant to order u/s 154 of the I.T.Act, demand u/s 200A of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.1,79,250 was reduced to Rs.79,200. Consequently, there is a merger of the order passed u/s 200A(3) with the order passed u/s 154 of the Act. Hence, the view expressed by the learned CIT(A) that no demand has been raised in the order passed u/s 154 of the Act is not legally correct. Therefore, the matter is restored to the CIT(A) directing him to consider the grounds on merits. It is ordered accordingly.