M/S W S INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2941/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 20206 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. As the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed 22 appeals before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A) which had dismissed the appeals due to delay. The assessee contended that the delay was due to restructuring and internal issues, and sought condonation based on the principle of substantial justice.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) should be condoned. A secondary issue was the validity of levy under Section 234E prior to a certain date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN

आदेश / O R D E R

PER BENCH

1.

These 22 appeals are filed by the Assessee against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Chennai in appeal Nos.441 to 452(A), 461 to 466, 469,470,472/18-19, dated 09.09.2019, for the assessment years 2014-15(24Q-Q3), 2014-15(24Q-Q4), 2014-15(26Q-Q2), 2014-15(26Q-Q3), 2014-15(26Q-Q4), 2014-15(27Q-Q4), 2014-15(27EQ-Q4), 2015-16(24Q-Q1), 2015-16(24Q-Q2), 2015-16(24Q-Q3), 2015-16(24Q-Q4), 2015-16(26Q-Q1), 2015-16(26Q-Q2), 2015-16(26Q-Q3), 2015-16(26Q-Q4), 2015-16(27EQ-Q1), 2015-16(27EQ-Q2), 2015-16(27EQ-Q3), 2015-16(27EQ-Q4),2016-17(24Q-Q1), 2016-17(26Q-Q1), 2016-17(27EQ-Q1).

2.

Mr.B.Ramakrishnan, represented on behalf of the assessee and Mr.Sunderarajan represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

As the facts are identical in all these 22 appeals of assessee, they are heard together and are disposed off by this common order. to 2956/Chny/2019 :- 3 -: WS Industries

4.

It was submitted by the learned A.R. that these appeals related to the levy under Section 234E of the Act. It was a submission that on merits the issue was in favour of the assessee as held in various cases by the Tribunal holding that the levy under Section 234E prior to 01.06.2005 was invalid as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A vis-à-vis Clause (1)(C) of 234E for the levy of such fee while processing the statement of tax deducted at source. The Ld. A.R. relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Chennai Tribunal in the case of M/s.Pelican Realty projects Private Ltd., Vs. DCIT, in ti 2255 /Chny/2019 dated 19.12.2019 for assessment years 2015- 16(Q1)(Q2)(Q3) & 2016-17(Q1). It was submitted by the Ld. A.R. that as the appeals filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) was delayed, learned CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeals by not condoning the delay. It was further submitted by the Ld. A.R. that the assessee company is undergoing re-structuring and that the factory of the assessee is closed on account of re-structuring. It was submitted that the requisite TDS had been paid within the due date and on account of re-structuring, the Accountant of the assessee to 2956/Chny/2019 :- 4 -: WS Industries company had on a presumption that all the requisite had been complied with, had not taken any further action. It was a submission that it was only when the CPC informed of the delay, that immediate corrective measures have been taken and further, the Accountant had not intimated the management in respect of the orders received. Immediately when the assessee came to know of the orders, the appeals were filed.. It was submitted by the Ld. A.R that when substantial justice is pitted against technicalities, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that technicalities should step back and substantial justice should prevail. The Ld. A.R. placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst.Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107. It was a prayer that the delay in filing of the appeals before the learned CIT(A) may be condoned and the issues in the appeal restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

5.

In reply, the Ld. D.R. submitted that there is a substantial delay in filing of these appeals varying from 312 days to maximum of 1715 days. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the learned CIT(A). to 2956/Chny/2019 :- 5 -: WS Industries

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the decision in the case of Mst.Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107(SC) as declared by the Apex Court shows that Hon’ble Supreme held that:

“Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen, is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.”

Thus, clearly the Hon’ble Supreme Court has accepted the proposition that when substantial justice is pitted against technicalities, substantial justice must prevail. Keeping this principle in mind, if the cause of the delay in filing of these appeals before the learned CIT(A) is viewed, it becomes clear that the assessee has substantially reasonable cause in respect of the delay in filing of these appeals. Consequently, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) requires to be condoned and we do so. As it is noticed that the learned CIT(A) has not given his findings on merits, the issues in to 2956/Chny/2019 :- 6 -: WS Industries these appeals on merits are restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication.

7.

In the result, all these 22 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 13th May, 2020, at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 234E

All 4,792 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234E →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →