Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ C ” BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
O R D E R PER BENCH : These are the appeals filed by Group Company Assesses against Separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed under Section 200A(1) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Since the appeals are connected and have common issues, hence they are clubbed and heard together and common consolidated order is passed.
At the time of hearing, the Authorized Representative of the assessee has argued only on facts of non-condo nation of delay by the CIT (Appeals) .
The Ld Ar’s contentions are that delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) was not condoned, and the authority overlooked the facts of non receipt of orders and dismissed the appeal. LdAr Further emphasized that the assessee has filed a letter on 9.7.2019 with relevant copies of the orders under Section 200A of the Act for Quarter 2, Quarter 4 for Form 24Q before appellate authority.
The CIT (Appeals) made observations on delay in filling of Appeal, and has not gone into the merits of the case. CIT(A) is of the opinion that the orders u/sec200A were duly served on the assessee and the assessee has failed to explain the delay and dismissed the appeal. Whereas the claim of the assessee that the order under Section 200AA of the Act was not received. In fact the assessee has received the order on 25.5.2018 and filed the appeal and prayed for allowing the appeal. Per Contra, The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the CIT (Appeals).
4 to 2010/Bang/2019 5. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The only disputed issue argued by the learned Authorized Representative is in respect of condonation of delay, as the CIT (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal observing that there is a delay in filing of the appeal. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that order passed U/Sec200Aof the Act was never served on the assessee. We found that the assessee, in the course of appellate proceedings, filed copy of relevant orders under Section 200AA of the Act by letter dt.9.7.2019. We considering the observations of the CIT(Appeals), Assessee submissions, facts and circumstances, are of the opinion that assessee shall not gain any benefit from delaying in the filling of Appeal and there exist sufficient cause in the submissions. Further We rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji & others (167 ITR 471) (SC) and the observations are read as under :
“ The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting s. 5 of the 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—that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the "State" is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact, experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherent bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file- pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community does not deserve a litigant non grata status. The Courts, therefore, have to be informed of the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression "sufficient cause". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its 5 to 2010/Bang/2019 application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits.” Accordingly, in the interest of Substantial justice, we condoned the delay and set aside the orders of the CIT (Appeals) and restore the disputed issues to the file of CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate on merits and provide adequate opportunity of Hearing to the assessee and further the assessee shall co-operate in submitting the Information for early disposal of appeal, and allow the assessee appeal for statistical purposes.
Similarly, the assessee has filed an appeal in ITA No.2008/Bang/2019 where the issues are similar and identical and the decision as dealt by us in shall equally apply. Accordingly, we condoned the delay and set aside the order of the CIT (A), and restore the issues to the file of CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits with similar directions and allow the grounds of appeal
of the assessee for statistical purposes.
7. In ITA No.2009/Bang/2019 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and ITA No.2010/Bang/2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of Appeal as under :
The learned Authorized Representative submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the Appeal for non-maintainability and defective.
Further the LdAr submitted that since the assessee has not received order under Section 200AA of the Act, Hence, the assessee based on the letter of 7 to 2010/Bang/2019 Assessing Officer on a default summary downloaded from Traces, web site of the Income Tax filed the appeal. The observations of the CIT(Appeals) are that these are not appealable orders and treated as not maintainable. Whereas the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the assessee has been pursuing with Assessing Officer and got the original orders and ready to file before CIT(A) and prayed for one more opportunity before Appellate Authority. Whereas the ld. DR supported the orders of CIT(Appeals). 10. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Prima facie, the CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the assessee appeal on non-maintainability and defective. In the course of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that at the time of filing the appeal, original orders were not available. Hence the assessee has filed the appeal on the basis of default summary downloaded from Traces Income Tax Website. Further the assessee has been pursuing the matter with the Assessing Officer for issue of original order. and emphasized that the assessee has received the original orders from the Department and ready to file the before the appellate authorities. Considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions of the learned Authorized Representative ,we are of the view that the Revenue shall not be at loss if an opportunity of Hearing is granted. Considering the principles of natural justice, we set-aside the order of CIT(A), and provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee before the 8 to 2010/Bang/2019 CIT (Appeals) to substantiate the case with evidences and CIT(Appeals) shall provide adequate opportunity hearing to the assessee to submit the information and the Assessee shall cooperate for early disposal of Appeal and allow the grounds of appeal
for statistical purposes.
11. Similarly, in ITA No.2010/Bang/2019, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that there is a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. On examination of the petition, we found the reasons are acceptable and the learned Departmental Representative has no serious objections. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted and heard. In this appeal, the facts are similar and identical to ITA No.2009/Bang/2019 dealt above, and the same decision shall apply to this appeal. Accordingly, with the similar directions, we set-aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the disputed issues to the file of CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate on merits and appellate authority shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and allow the grounds of appeal of assessee for statistical purposes.