ARHAM ENTERPRISE,DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO(TDS), WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Since, in these four appeals are Since, in these four appeals are filed by the same assessee, and in the appeals filed by the same assessee, and in the appeals have identical and similar facts are involved. Therefore, these four appeals have identical and similar facts are involved. Therefore, these four appeals have identical and similar facts are involved. Therefore, these four appeals have been clubbed and heard together and consequent order been clubbed and heard together and consequent order has been passed for seek passed for seek convenience and poverty.

First of all, we adjudicate the ITA No. 147 & 148/Rjt/2025 for AY 2016 First of all, we adjudicate the ITA No. 147 & 148/Rjt/2025 for AY 2016-17 First of all, we adjudicate the ITA No. 147 & 148/Rjt/2025 for AY 2016 to 2017-18. We take lead case ITA No. 147/Rjt/2025 for AY 2016 18. We take lead case ITA No. 147/Rjt/2025 for AY 2016-17 in the 18. We take lead case ITA No. 147/Rjt/2025 for AY 2016 case of Arham Enterprise, have been taken into consideration for deciding these , have been taken into consideration for deciding these , have been taken into consideration for deciding these four appeals and en-masse together together.

The Grounds of appeal (ITA 147/Rjt/2025 for AY 2016-17) raised by the raised by the assessee, are as follows; “1. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2. The Id. Commissioner of Income Tax The Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] erred in law as also on facts in Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] erred in law as also on facts in Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] erred in law as also on facts in confirming AO's action of determining tax liability of Rs. 2,57,530/ confirming AO's action of determining tax liability of Rs. 2,57,530/- by alleging that by alleging that the appellant is liable for making TCS, which the appellant is liable for making TCS, which he failed to make either TCS and he failed to make either TCS and genuineness of Form No. 27C is questionable. The tax liability confirmed is totally genuineness of Form No. 27C is questionable. The tax liability confirmed is totally genuineness of Form No. 27C is questionable. The tax liability confirmed is totally unjustified on facts as also in law and may kindly be deleted. unjustified on facts as also in law and may kindly be deleted. 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in law as also on facts in confirming charging of i The Id. CIT(A) erred in law as also on facts in confirming charging of interest u/s. The Id. CIT(A) erred in law as also on facts in confirming charging of i 206C(7) of the Act at Rs. 1,54,520/ 206C(7) of the Act at Rs. 1,54,520/-. The interest levied on tax liability determined . The interest levied on tax liability determined u/s. 206C(6) is totally unjustified on facts as also in law and may kindly be deleted. u/s. 206C(6) is totally unjustified on facts as also in law and may kindly be deleted. u/s. 206C(6) is totally unjustified on facts as also in law and may kindly be deleted. 4. appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter, or withdraw any or appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter, or withdraw any or more grounds of more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal.” appeal on or before the hearing of appeal

The Grounds of appeal (ITA 148/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017 The Grounds of appeal (ITA 148/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017-18) raised by the 18) raised by the assessee, are as follows; “1. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2. The Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] erred in law as also on facts in Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] erred in law as also on facts in Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] erred in law as also on facts in confirming AO's action of determining tax liability of Rs. 2,17,380/ confirming AO's action of determining tax liability of Rs. 2,17,380/- by alleging that by alleging that the appellant is liable for making TCS, which he failed to make either TCS and iable for making TCS, which he failed to make either TCS and iable for making TCS, which he failed to make either TCS and genuineness of Form No. 27C is questionable. The tax liability confirmed is totally genuineness of Form No. 27C is questionable. The tax liability confirmed is totally genuineness of Form No. 27C is questionable. The tax liability confirmed is totally unjustified on facts as also in law and may kindly be deleted. unjustified on facts as also in law and may kindly be deleted. Page | 2

At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both t submitted that both the appeals filed by the assessee before the Tribunal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal are barred by limitation of barred by limitation of 518 days and 152 days respectively respectively. The ITA No.147/RJT/2025 for A.Y.2016 The ITA No.147/RJT/2025 for A.Y.2016-17 is barred by limitation of 518 days whereas assessee’s appeal in ITA barred by limitation of 518 days whereas assessee’s appeal in ITA barred by limitation of 518 days whereas assessee’s appeal in ITA No.148/RJT/2025 is barred by limitation of 152 days. T No.148/RJT/2025 is barred by limitation of 152 days. The Ld. AR of the he Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by led an application for condonation of delay, supported by led an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The application for delay is as under; Affidavit. The application for delay is as under;

During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR stated that During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR stated that notices were issued notices were issued through ITBA Portal, on an e BA Portal, on an e-mail address "jaykamdar80@gmail.com". The r80@gmail.com". The said e-mail address belongs mail address belongs to partner Jay Kamdar. He forwarded the same to forwarded the same to his accountant with the directio his accountant with the direction to send it to Charted Accountant harted Accountant who was handing appeal matter. However, by mistake, . However, by mistake, Accountant sends the same to the same to appellant's regular tax consultant instead of sending to the chartered accountant ellant's regular tax consultant instead of sending to the chartered accountant ellant's regular tax consultant instead of sending to the chartered accountant who was handling the appellate proceeding. Therefore, the appellate order handling the appellate proceeding. Therefore, the appellate order handling the appellate proceeding. Therefore, the appellate order remained unattended and appeal could not be filed within prescribed time limit. unattended and appeal could not be filed within prescribed time limit. unattended and appeal could not be filed within prescribed time limit. The Ld. AR requested that the delay may kindly b at the delay may kindly be condoned in filing the e condoned in filing the appeal, and the matter may kindly be send back to the lower authority for proper appeal, and the matter may kindly be send back to the lower authority for proper appeal, and the matter may kindly be send back to the lower authority for proper adjudication. The Ld. DR for the revenue did not object to the prayer for to the prayer for condonation of delay and prayer for one opportunity condonation of delay and prayer for one opportunity granted to the assessee to the assessee for hearing.

Brief facts of the Case that t that the appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business he appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. 201 was initiated by the Income tax Officer, 201 was initiated by the Income tax Officer, TDS1, Rajkot (the AO) for non TDS1, Rajkot (the AO) for non- collection of TCS on scrap and non scrap and non-filling of statement in form no. 27EQ within the prescribed time statement in form no. 27EQ within the prescribed time. During that period the During that period the family members of Mr. Jay Kamdar (Partner of the firm) were infected by family members of Mr. Jay Kamdar (Partner of the firm) were infected by family members of Mr. Jay Kamdar (Partner of the firm) were infected by covid-19 and father of partner Shri Jay S. Kamdar was died on 19 and father of partner Shri Jay S. Kamdar was died on 04.02.2021. Due 04.02.2021. Due to this unforeseen situation the appellant was not in a position to submit reply seen situation the appellant was not in a position to submit reply seen situation the appellant was not in a position to submit reply within a time allowed by the AO. However, the appellant has prepared reply within a time allowed by the AO. However, the appellant has prepared reply within a time allowed by the AO. However, the appellant has prepared reply along with Form 27BA (Chartered Accountants certificate as prescribed under along with Form 27BA (Chartered Accountants certificate as prescribed under along with Form 27BA (Chartered Accountants certificate as prescribed under first proviso to sub-section (6A) of section 206C of the I.T. Act) on 12.03.2021 section (6A) of section 206C of the I.T. Act) on 12.03.2021 section (6A) of section 206C of the I.T. Act) on 12.03.2021 and going to file on 15.03.2021. and going to file on 15.03.2021. The AO has made an order u/s. 234E of the Act The AO has made an order u/s. 234E of the Act for non-filing of TCS statement and raised a demand of Rs.2,57,530/ filing of TCS statement and raised a demand of Rs.2,57,530/-. That the filing of TCS statement and raised a demand of Rs.2,57,530/

We have heard both the parties. We note that the as d both the parties. We note that the assessee was not aware sessee was not aware about the proceedings going on before the Ld. CIT(A) about the proceedings going on before the Ld. CIT(A). In the absence of any . In the absence of any contrary material of fact available on record, there is a sufficient cause for delay contrary material of fact available on record, there is a sufficient cause for delay contrary material of fact available on record, there is a sufficient cause for delay in filing the present appeal in filing the present appeal. The said e-mail address belonging to partner mail address belonging to partner Jay Kamdar. On receipt of the same he forwarded the same to his accountant with Kamdar. On receipt of the same he forwarded the same to his accountant with Kamdar. On receipt of the same he forwarded the same to his accountant with the direction to send it to consultant who is handing appellant matter of the direction to send it to consultant who is handing appellant matter of the direction to send it to consultant who is handing appellant matter of appellant. However, by mistake he sent the same to appellant's regular tax appellant. However, by mistake he sent the same to appellant's regular tax appellant. However, by mistake he sent the same to appellant's regular tax consultant instead of sending to the chartered accountant handling the appellate ing to the chartered accountant handling the appellate ing to the chartered accountant handling the appellate proceeding. Therefore, the appellate order remains unattended and appeal could proceeding. Therefore, the appellate order remains unattended and appeal could proceeding. Therefore, the appellate order remains unattended and appeal could not be filed within prescribed time limit. not be filed within prescribed time limit. Sec. 253(5) of the Act, empowers the 253(5) of the Act, empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after ITAT to admit an appeal after the delay explained by the assessee, ed by the assessee, considering the reason explained by the Ld. AR the reason explained by the Ld. AR that in appears to be sufficient cause for not that in appears to be sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view that . In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view that . In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view that the delay of 518 days in ITA No.147/RJT/2025 and 152 of 518 days in ITA No.147/RJT/2025 and 152 days in ITA days in ITA No.148/RJT/2025 deserves to be condoned and, a No.148/RJT/2025 deserves to be condoned and, accordingly, we condone the ccordingly, we condone the delay and admit both the appeal the appeals of the assessee to adjudicate on merit of the assessee to adjudicate on merit. Therefore, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to produce/submit the relevant documents before the Lower Authority. e/submit the relevant documents before the Lower Authority. e/submit the relevant documents before the Lower Authority. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the mat we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the mat

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i.e., ITA.147&148/Rjt/2025, ITA.147&148/Rjt/2025, and ITA.227&228/Rjt/2022 for AY 2016 ITA.227&228/Rjt/2022 for AY 2016-17 to 2017-18, are allowed for allowed for statistical purpose.