TOTAL TRANSPORT SYSTEMS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD- 3(3), BENGALURU

The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has filed appeals before Ld CIT(A) challenging the demand raised u/s 234E of the Act for the belated filing of Statement of TDS relating to tax deducted at source under various sections of the Act in Form no.24Q & Form No.26Q for various quarters falling in the financial years relevant to assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15. She submitted that the assessee did not get intimations of processing the Statement of TDS, wherein the demand u/s 234E was first raised. Hence the assessee was not aware of the demand raised u/s 234E of the Act. When the assessee has visited the Income tax department site, it came to know of the outstanding demand. Since the assessee could not download the relevant copies of intimations, it downloaded a report titled as “Default Summary”, which contained details of outstanding demand, which consisted of demand raised by way of fee u/s 234E of the Act for belated filing of Statement of TDS. Since the assessee wanted to contest the demand raised u/s 234E of the Act, it filed appeals before Ld CIT(A) challenging the demand. However, the Ld CIT(A) observed that the assessee has not filed copies of intimations issued u/s 200A of the Act and hence the appeals are defective. The Ld CIT(A) took the view that the “default summary” furnished by the assessee is only an advisory letter and the assessee could not prefer any appeal against the advisory letter. Even though the Ld CIT(A) took the view that the appeal is also belated, he did not adjudicate the same for the reason that he had already dismissed the appeals as defective.

The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee can prefer an appeal before Ld CIT(A) u/s 246A of the Act against an order where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act. She submitted that it is so stated in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of sec.246A of the Act. She also placed her reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Genpact India P Ltd vs. DCIT (2019)(419 ITR 440)(SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that assessee has filed an appeal where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act. She submitted that similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of National Products vs. CIT (1977)(108 ITR 935)(Kar). She submitted that the assessee furnished copies of default summary, since it did not receive the relevant intimations. She submitted that the “default summary” also reflects the demand raised under the intimation processed u/s 200A of the Act and hence, in effect, it can be considered as a copy of intimation also. Since the assessee denies its liability u/s 234E of the Act, it has preferred appeals before Ld CIT(A) challenging the demand raised u/s 234E of the Act. She further submitted that the above said dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateraj Singhvi vs. UOI (2016)(73 Taxmann.com 252).

She further submitted that the assessee has filed appeals immediately after downloading of Default summary. She submitted that, if the date of intimations is considered as the date of order and consequently if the appeals are considered as delayed, then there is reasonable cause for the delay, since the assessee has not received the relevant intimations. Accordingly, she prayed that the delay, if any, in filing appeals before Ld CIT(A) should be condoned.

The Ld D.R, on the contrary, supported the orders passed by Ld CIT(A). She submitted that intimations are sent by electronic mode and it is quite possible that the assessee might not have seen the e-mail message. She further submitted that the assessee could also download copies of intimations. She further submitted that it is necessary to enclose the orders appealed against. Since the assessee did not enclose the copies of those orders, the appeal papers are rendered defective and hence the Ld CIT(A) was constrained to dismiss the appeals as defective. Accordingly, the first appellate authority has not dealt with the issue of delay in filing appeals, since the same would be academic in nature.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record. We have noticed that the Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals for the reason that the assessee did not enclose the copies of intimations issued u/s 200A of the Act. However, it is the submission of the assessee that it did not receive intimations and hence it has enclosed copy of “Default Summary”, which also depicts the demand raised upon the assessee u/s 234E of the Act. There should not be any dispute that the grievance of the assessee in all the appeals filed before the Ld CIT(A) related to the demand raised u/s 234E of the Act only. The demand by way of fee mentioned in sec. 234E of the Act is raised for the period of delay in filing return of income. While processing the Statement of TDS, the computer system would be automatically computing the demand u/s 234E by considering the due date for filing Statement of TDS and the actual date of filing the same, meaning thereby, there will be no discussions on the back ground of the demand.

We notice that the provisions of sec.246A enable an assessee to file appeal, if the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under the Act. In the instant case, the assessee denies his liability for payment of fee prescribed u/s 234E of the Act for belated filing of Statement of TDS and hence the assessee has preferred appeals before Ld CIT(A). However the Ld CIT(A) has considered the appeals to be defective, since the assessee did not enclose copies of intimations along with the appeal memo.

At this stage, a specific query was raised by the bench to the Ld D.R as to whether the (a) data given in Default Summary is Correct? And (b) whether those data is amenable to modification by the assessee. The Ld D.R admitted that the data given in Default Summary is correct and further those data cannot be modified. Hence, the pending demand shown in the Default summary should be taken as correct. There is no dispute that the default summary also depicts outstanding demand raised upon the assessee u/s 234E of the Act.

When the demand mentioned in the Default Summary is correct and further the demand raised u /s 234E is machine computed demand, in our view, no useful purpose will be served in insisting upon the copies of intimations, since the said intimations also would show the very same demand raised u/s 234E of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) should have proceeded to dispose of the appeals by taking cognizance of the default summary furnished by the assessee along with the return of income.

Even though we have stated that the “Default summary” may be taken as the document depicting the demand, yet we have been informed by Ld D.R that the assessee could download the copies of intimations from the Income tax Site. Accordingly, we direct the assessee to download copies of intimations and if it is not able to download so, it may seek the assistance of the concerned authorities of Income tax department for downloading the intimations and after the copies of intimations are downloaded, they may be filed with Ld CIT(A).

According to Ld CIT(A), there is delay in filing the appeals before him, if the dates of intimations are considered for computing the period of limitation. Before us, the assessee has explained the back ground in filing appeals before the Ld CIT(A). Accordingly, the delay, if any, occurred from the date of intimation to the date of downloading of “Default Summary” deserves to be condoned. Accordingly we condone the delay that occurred between the date of intimation u/s 200A and the date of downloading of “Default Summary”. Accordingly, the assessee should have filed appeal from 30 days of date of downloading of “Default Summary”. The assessee may verify the same and if there is any delay, in the interest of natural justice, we allow an opportunity to explain the delay, if any, before Ld CIT(A), which shall be examined by Ld CIT(A) in accordance with law.

We have noticed that the Ld CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeals on merits. If there is delay in filing appeals after downloading of “Default summary”, the said delay also needs to be examined by Ld CIT(A). Accordingly, we are of the view that all the appeals under consideration are required to be set aside to the file of Ld CIT(A).

In view of the foregoing discussions, we set aside the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore all of them to the file of Ld CIT(A) in terms of our order discussed above.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.