UNION BANK OF INDIA RGPV - BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. ACIT(TDS), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 839/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 October 2025AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative fairly agreed to the assessee's prayer. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's willingness to file Form No. 26A and avail the benefit of the first proviso to Section 201(1) and the first proviso to Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had explained that the delay in submissions before the CIT(A) was due to the time taken to receive requisite forms from its head office. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee was directed to make full representation before the CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Union Bank of India, Bhopal branch, is appealing against three orders passed by the ACIT (TDS), Bhopal, under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. These orders pertain to assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2018-19, arising from financial years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2017-18 respectively. The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee paid interest to RGPV, Bhopal, without deducting Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The AO levied tax and interest. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), but these appeals were dismissed ex-parte as the assessee failed to represent its case. The present appeals before the ITAT were filed after significant delays (610, 607, and 583 days). The assessee filed condonation applications citing reasons related to pending rectification applications and awaiting orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was inadvertent and bona fide, caused by pursuing a rectification application before the CIT(A) and awaiting its outcome. They stated that they were advised not to file appeals against the main orders while the rectification was pending. Upon receiving the rectification order, they immediately consulted their counsel and filed the present appeals. They relied on the principle that no one benefits from a belated appeal and sought condonation in the interest of justice. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative fairly agreed to the assessee's prayer for condonation and remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 154,Section 250,Section 139

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, ARs
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 09.10.2025Pronounced: 10.10.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per Bench:

1.

The captioned three (3) appeals have been filed by assessee against three (3) separate orders of first-appeals dated 27.01.2023, 27.01.2023 & 24.02.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of three separate orders all dated 26.02.2019 passed by learned ACIT (TDS), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Financial Years 2011-12 [Q-1 to Q-4], 2012-13 [Q-1 to Q-4] & 2017-18 [Q-1 to Q-4] relevant to Assessment-Years [“AY”] 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2018-19 respectively. Page 1 of 6

2.

The background facts leading to these appeals are that the assessee/appellant is a branch of nationalized bank named ‘Union Bank of India’ engaged in banking business. A TDS survey was conducted by Income-tax authorities upon premise of assessee on 25.01.2019 and during survey and subsequent proceedings, it was found by AO that the assessee has paid interest to RGPV, Bhopal during financial years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2017-18 without deducting tax at source (TDS). The AO has extracted data of interest payments made by assessee, the TDS deductible, the period of delay, interest leviable u/s 201(1A) in his orders. Ultimately, the AO passed three separate orders for respective years demanding tax and interest payable by assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in first-appeals before CIT(A) but could not represent cases and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders dismissing assessee’s appeals. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeals before us.

3.

The registry has informed that that these appeals have been filed after delays of 610 days, 607 days and 583 days respectively. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed condonation-applications in all three matters supported by affidavits and prays for condonation. The applications filed in all three cases are similarly worded and we re-produce one of the applications:

4.

On merit, Ld. AR for assessee made a straightforward submission. He invited our attention to following Provisos to section 201(1)/201(1A) of Income-tax Act, 1961 and Rule 31ACB of Income-tax Rules, 1962, prescribing as under:

1st proviso to Section 201(1): “Provided that any person, including the principal officer of a company, who fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter on the sum paid to a payee or on the sum credited to the account of a payee shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such payee—

(i) has furnished his return of income under section 139; (ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and (iii) has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income, and the person furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed:

Rule 31ACB: This Rule prescribes Form No. 26A for the purpose of 1st Proviso to section 201(1).

1st proviso to Section 201(1A): “Provided that in case any person, including the principal officer of a company fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter on the sum paid to a payee or on the sum credited to the account of a payee but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under Page 4 of 6

the first proviso to sub-section (1), the interest under clause (i) shall be payable from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date of furnishing of return of income by such payee:”

5.

Then, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is willing to file the Form No. 26A and avail benefit of aforesaid 1st Proviso to section 201(1) and 1st Proviso to section 201(1A). He prayed that the assessee is a branch of nationalized bank and needed time to receive the requisite forms from head office and for that reason sought adjournments from CIT(A) but, however, the process took more time and the assessee was unable to make submissions to CIT(A), which led the CIT(A) to pass ex-parte orders and dismiss assessee’s appeals. However, the assessee is now ready to make submissions before CIT(A) and in the interest of justice one more opportunity must be given to assessee by remanding these matters to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh.

6.

Ld. DR for revenue fairly agreed to the prayer of Ld. AR. He, however, requested that the assessee be directed to represent its cases fully before CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

7.

In view of above, we are inclined to remit these matters back to the file of CIT(A) who shall consider the claim of assessee and decide matter afresh.

The assessee is also directed to make full representation before CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

8.

Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 10/10/2025.

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →