M/S. BHARATHI RAJAA HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC,, GHAZIABAD

The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the impugned appeals without giving proper opportunity to the assessee and without assigning proper reasons and justification, on technical ground, which is wholly unjustified and untenable. Inviting our attention to the reason cited by the assessee, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee, inter- alia, explained that how it was unaware of the change from the conventional system of service to e-system of service of the impugned orders and when the recovery notice dated 25.02.2019 was electronically received, it came to know the issues and immediately assessee took steps in filing these appeals and therefore sought condonation of delay in filing these appeals and prayed the ld.CIT(A) to decide them on merit and render justice. Though the impugned orders were passed and electronically served from 2011 onwards, the Revenue has brought anything on record that it took steps to collect to 2576/Chny/2019 - 4 - any of the impugned demand before 25.02.2019 and to say that the assessee was aware of the impugned orders / demands. The ld.AR relying on the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. ACIT in Civil Appeal Nos.6671 – 6676 of 2010 with 6677-6690 of 2010 dated 07.11.2019, prayed that the delay in filing each of the above appeals be condoned and they may be directed to be decided on merits and due justice be rendered to the assessee.

Per contra, the ld. DR supported the orders of the ld.CIT(A) and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Alfa Properties & Investments P. Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 9(1), in ITA (L) No.681 of 2018 dated 13.07.2018. The ld.DR invited our attention to para 10 of the notification No.3/2013 (F.No.142/39/2012 – SO[TPL] ) dt. 15.01.2013 issued by CBDT on centralized processing of statements of TDS, 2013, which is extracted as under:- Service of notice or communication 10. (1) The service of a notice or order or intimation or any other communication by the Cell may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof to the deductor,- (a) by electronic mail; or to 2576/Chny/2019 - 5 - (b) by placing such copy in the registered electronic account of the deductor on the portal of the Cell; or (c) by any mode mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 282 of the Act. (2) The date of posting of any communication under sub-paragraph (1) in the electronic mail or electronic account of the deductor in the portal of the Cell shall be deemed to be the date of service of such communication. (3) The intimation, orders and notices shall be computer generated and need not carry physical signature of the person issuing it.

We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. In these appeals, the assessee pleads that the impugned electronic communications were not brought to the notice of the Managing Director and Chairman, the assessee, and he himself was not conversant as well as not comfortable with the e-proceeding at the said point of time. When the recovery notice dated 25.02.2019 was received, electronically, the issues were brought to his notice and he to 2576/Chny/2019 - 6 - immediately took steps to file the above appeals, which caused the delay in filing each of these appeals, which is not deliberate but bonafide and beyond his control and therefore, he sought the condonation of delay in respect of each of these appeals. It was also pleaded that though the impugned orders were passed from 2009 to 2019, till the recovery notice served, electronically on 25.02.2019, the Revenue had not sent any other communication in respect of any of the demand raised in the impugned orders. Therefore, it is pleaded that the reason canvassed by the assessee towards the delay in filing these appeals have sufficient and reasonable cause and hence, it was prayed to condone the delay in filing each of these appeals. We find that the reason canvassed by the assessee towards the delay in filing the impugned appeals appears reasonable and sufficient and hence, we condone the delay in filing each of these appeals and remit these appeals back to the ld.CIT(A) for deciding each of them on merits after affording effective opportunity to the assessee.

Further, it is clear from the above that the CPC was processing the orders from January, 2011 onwards. However, the CBDT issued the above notification on 15.01. 2013 only which indicates that there to 2576/Chny/2019 - 7 - were gaps between the manual system and the electronic system which required proper administration and hence, the CBDT addressed such problems through the impugned notification. Though, the Revenue claimed to have served the impugned orders electronically, the assessee pleads that they were not brought to its notice and the Revenue has not sent any further communication till the date of recovery notice served on 25.02.2019 electronically. Therefore, the assessee was unaware of such orders. Even, if the above notification is applied, the orders passed by the CPC, prior to this date, that is those orders passed from Jan 2011 to Dec2013 should have been served on the assessee by any of the mode mentioned in sub-section (1) to Section 282 of the Act, which, apparently, has not been done by the Revenue, as it has not placed any such material before us. Further, when there is a change from one system, say the manual system to the other system, say the electronic system , apart from relying the rules and regulations, the Revenue as an administrator of the Act must also guide the assessees, in enabling them to comply with the systemic changes in a reasonable manner. Atleast in those cases, like this case, where the demand made on the assessee is pending for long time and the assessee has not responded, the ITA Nos.2540 to 2576/Chny/2019 - 8 - Revenue should also have used other mode of communication. In this case, the Revenue has not brought any such communication with the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the reason canvassed by the assessee towards the delay in filing the impugned appeals appears reasonable and sufficient and hence, we condone the delay in filing each of these appeals and remit these appeals back to the ld.CIT(A) for deciding each of them on merits after affording effective opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.