M/S PKN CAPS AND POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “ A ” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA Nos.337 & 338/Bang/2019 (Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. PKN Caps & Polymers Pvt. Ltd., S.No.20, Alahalli Telephone Exchange Compound, Anjanapura Main Road, J.P. Nagar, 9th Phase, Bangalore-560 108 ….Appellant PAN AABCP 2637E Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad-201010. ……Respondent.

Assessee By: Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT (D.R)

Date of Hearing : 26.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2019

O R D E R PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bangalore passed under Section 200A and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since both the appeals are on similar issues, they are heard together

2 ITA Nos.337 & 338/Bang/2019 and consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we take up the

appeal in ITA No.337/Bang/2019 and the facts narrated therein. Though the

learned Authorised Representative has raised the grounds of appeal on merits but

at the time of time of hearing he has restricted his arguments to the extent of

condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The learned

Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee has filed appeal against the

order of CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal for condonation of delay in filing the

appeal before the CIT(A) and opportunity be granted to substantiate the case

before the CIT(Appeals). Contra, the ld. DR supported the orders of the

CIT(Appeals).

learned Authorised Representative arguments are specifically on condonation of

delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The learned Authorised

Representative submitted that the assessee has submitted the reasons in Form 35

for delay in filing the appeal

regular in submitting the TDS Returns. Whereas there was a delay in filing the

returns and the assessee has filed quarterly returns for Quarter 2, 3 & 4 in Form

No.24Q and 26Q. The total late fees payable under Section 234E is Rs.95,842.

We found that the assessee has filed the TDS statements as mentioned in the traces

3 ITA Nos.337 & 338/Bang/2019 intimation under Section 200A of the Act in 2013 which is not disputed whereas

the appeal has been filed on 16.03.2017 before the CIT(Appeals) electronically.

The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee has challenged

the order under Section 200A dt.14.12.2016 but the fact that the intimation dates

are all pertaining to the year 3.9.2013 for the F.Y. 2012-13 Quarter 2 dt.30.08.2016

whereas the Quarter 2 Dt.8.9.2013 Quarter 3 Dt.8.9.2013 Quarter 4 Dt.30.08.2016

and Quarter 4 Dt.8.9.2013. The contention of the learned Authorised

Representative that the assessee has prosecuted the disputed issue on delay with

the Assessing Officer, since no relief was granted by the AO the assessee has filed

an appeal with the CIT(Appeals) and also filed condonation petition. The learned

CIT(Appeals) relied on the judicial decisions and declined to condone the delay.

We find that the assessee is regular in filing the returns which is not disputed and

was also pursuing the remedy with the Assessing Officer for cancellation of these

demands and since the letter has been received on 14.12.2016, the assessee has

filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals) which was dismissed without condonation

of delay. We find the actions of the assessee are bona fide which cannot be

overlooked and the explanations of the assessee are realistic. But for various

reasons the remedy could not be available with the Assessing Officer for

cancellation of demand. Hence the assessee has preferred an appeal and such acts

of the assessee are not a wanton or to mislead to the revenue authorities. Hence

4 ITA Nos.337 & 338/Bang/2019 considering the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that the revenue

shall not be at a loss if the delay is condoned and the matter is restored to the file of

CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits. Accordingly, in the interest of justice we

condone the delay and restore the entire disputed issue to the file of CIT(Appeals)

for adjudication afresh on merits and pass a speaking order and allow the grounds of appeal of assessee for statistical purposes.

issues are identical as discussed in the above paragraph. Hence we condone the

delay and restore all the disputed issues to the file of CIT(Appeals) for adjudication

afresh on merits and pass a speaking order.

Sd/- Sd/- (A.K. GARODIA) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20th December, 2019.

*Reddy GP / Desai S Murthy /

5 ITA Nos.337 & 338/Bang/2019

Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT (A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard File

By order

Assistant Registrar Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore