Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ A ” BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
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 appeal in 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).
We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The 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
Further the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee is 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 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 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.
Similarly in Assessment Year 2014-15, the 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.
In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th December, 2019.