Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI B. R. BASKARAN & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
Date of Hearing : 11.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2020 O R D E R PER BENCH:
All these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against common order dated 24.6.2019 passed by Ld. to 1808/Bang/2019 M/s.Programming Research Software Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru CIT(A)-13, Bengaluru and they relate to assessments years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
In all these appeals, the assessee is contesting the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeals in limine, without condoning the delay in filing the appeals before him. The assessee had prayed before Ld CIT(A) that the fee levied u/s 234E of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for the belated filing of statement of TDS should be deleted.
The facts relating to the issue are stated in brief. The assessee has deducted tax at source during the financial years 2012-13 to 2015-16 relevant to the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. However, the statement of TDS was filed for various quarters belatedly. Hence, while processing the statement of TDS u/s 200A of the Act, fee u/s 234E of the Act was levied on the statement of TDS filed for various quarters. The assessee challenged the fee levied u/s 234E of the Act by filing appeals before Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeals came to be filed belatedly before Ld. CIT(A) by 124 days to 128 to 1808/Bang/2019 M/s.Programming Research Software Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru days. The details of delay have been tabulated below by Ld. CIT(A).
The assessee relied on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi 73 Taxmann.com 252 before Ld CIT(A) and prayed that the late fee u/s 234E of the Act should be deleted.
With regard to the delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the person looking after the financial affairs of the company was busy in other matters to 1808/Bang/2019 M/s.Programming Research Software Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru and forgot to pursue the appeals in time. The Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanations furnished by the assessee for the delay. The Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hyderabad bench of Tribunal in the case of T. Kishan Vs. ACIT {IT(SS)A Nos.23 to 25/Hyd/2011} and refused to condone the delay. Accordingly, he dismissed all the appeals of the assessee in limine, by not admitting them. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals before us.
The Ld. A.R. submitted that there was a marginal delay of around 125 days in filing all these appeals before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. A.R. invited our attention to the petition filed before Ld. CIT(A) explaining the delay, which read as under: to 1808/Bang/2019 M/s.Programming Research Software Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru
The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has furnished reasonable explanation and none of it has been found to be false by Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, he submitted that the delay in filing appeals before Ld. CIT(A) be condoned and the late fee levied u/s 234E of the Act be deleted.
On the contrary, Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has not furnished proper explanations for the delay and the reasons furnished by the assessee are vague. Accordingly, he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay. to 1808/Bang/2019 M/s.Programming Research Software Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru
We heard the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of reasons furnished by the assessee, we notice that a staff named Mrs. Manjula, who was looking after the financial affairs of the company was entrusted with the work of pursuing the impugned matter relating to the fee levied u/s 234E of the Act. It is also stated that the group was undergoing a change in the management and ownership and the above said Mrs. Manjula was occupied with the same. In the meantime, Mrs. Manjula has also gone on medical leave for 14 days. It is submitted that all these factors have led to filing the appeals before Ld CIT(A) belatedly.
At this stage, it is relevant to the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katigi and Others 167 ITR 471 (SC), wherein it was observed as under: “…That the legislature has conferred power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice, for that is the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. The learned Judges emphasized on adoption of a liberal approach while to 1808/Bang/2019 M/s.Programming Research Software Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru
dealing with the applications for condonation of delay as ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and refusal to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice being defeated. It was stressed that there should not be a pedantic approach but the doctrine that is to be kept in mind is that the matter has to be dealt with in a rational commonsense pragmatic manner and cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred over the technical considerations. It was also ruled that there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence and that the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice on technical grounds as it is the duty of the court to remove injustice. In the said case the Division Bench observed that the State which represents the collective cause of the community does not deserve a litigant-non grata status and the courts are required to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of interpretation of the expression “sufficient cause”. “
From the perusal of the reasons furnished by the assessee for the delay, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause for the assessee in filing the appeals belatedly before Ld CIT(A). Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the impugned appeals before Ld. CIT(A). to 1808/Bang/2019 M/s.Programming Research Software Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru
We have noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) has not disposed the appeals on merits. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore all the appeals to his file for adjudicating them on merits.