Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN
आदेश / O R D E R
PER BENCH
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).
Mr.B.Ramakrishnan, represented on behalf of the
assessee and Mr.Sunderarajan represented on behalf of the
Revenue.
As the facts are identical in all these 22 appeals of
assessee, they are heard together and are disposed off by
this common order.
ITA Nos.2935 to 2956/Chny/2019 :- 3 -: WS Industries
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 I.T.A. Nos.2252 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
ITA Nos.2935 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.
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).
ITA Nos.2935 to 2956/Chny/2019 :- 5 -: WS Industries
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
ITA Nos.2935 to 2956/Chny/2019 :- 6 -: WS Industries
these appeals on merits are restored to the file of the learned
CIT(A) for adjudication.
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.
Sd/- Sd/- (एस जयरामन) ( जॉज� माथन) (S. JAYARAMAN) (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai �दनांक/Dated: 13th May, 2020. K S Sundaram
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 4. आयकर आयु�त/CIT 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/CIT(A) 6. गाड� फाईल/GF