M/S. INFYCONS CREATIVE SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1719/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 December 2019AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the delay deserves to be condoned.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) with significant delays, citing organizational changes and issues with the TDS consultant. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without considering the reasons for delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) against intimations under Section 200A should be condoned based on the reasons provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 200A,Section 234E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES : “B”, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K.GARODIA & SMT.BEENA PILLAI, JUDICAL MEMBER

For Respondent: Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Addl.CIT

Date of hearing : 09-12-2019 Date of pronouncement : 13-12-2019 O R D E R PER BENCH : Present appeals have been filed by assessee against order dated 26/12/18 and 25/06/19 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-3 Bangalore.

ITA Nos.324 -328(B)/2019 and -1721(B)/2019 2 2. Ld.AR submitted that these appeals arise out of intimation under section 200A of the Act, passed by Ld.AO levying interest under section 234E of the Act. 2.1 She submitted that appeal before Ld.CIT(A) for Q3 andQ4 pertaining to assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and Q4 pertaining to assessment year 2015-16, was filed with delay of 575,868,152,1001and 1003 days. It was submitted that delay in filing appeals was due to certain change in organization, and consultant who was in charge of TDS did not track intimations regularly. It was submitted that, for reasons beyond control there was delay to file appeals by assessee against intimation under section 200A of the IT Act, 1961 dated 1-10-2016, 13-05-2014, 31-05-2014, 30-07-2015. Further she submitted that against intimation dated 11-10-2014, though appeal was filed with delay of 868 days, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, since appeal filed was found to be defective. 2.2 She further submitted that appeal before Ld.CIT(A), for Q1, Q2 pertaining to assessment year 2013-14 and Q3 pertaining to assessment year 2014-15, filed with a delay of 1955 days. It was submitted that intimations under section 200A were not reflecting in TRACES website and assessee was unaware regarding these intimations. It was only when assessee received a consolidated outstanding demand for payment from the Department that assessee personally went to the concerned TDS jurisdiction to collect these intimations dated 26-10-2013.

More judgments on Section 200A

All 4,379 judgments and leading authorities on Section 200A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →