M/S. IBEX PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC, , GHAZIABAD

Shri N. Arjun Raj, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee filed one appeal against the order of Assessing Officer for all the four quarters for TDS return. The CIT(Appeals) found that the assessee filed appeal against the order passed under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and not against the order passed under Section 200A of the Act.

According to the Ld. representative, initially one consolidated appeal was filed for all the quarters. Subsequently, independent/separate appeals were filed for all the quarters.

On the contrary, Shri P. Muthushankar, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee filed appeal against the order passed under Section 154 of the Act and not against the order passed under Section 200A of the Act. Unless there is an appeal against the order under Section 200A of the Act, the appeal filed against the order passed under Section 154 of the Act is not maintainable. The Ld. D.R. has very fairly submitted that the delay is due to filing of consolidated appeal for all the four quarters in a year.

Having heard the Ld. representative for the assessee and the Ld. D.R., this Tribunal finds that initially the assessee filed one appeal for all the four quarters. In other words, a consolidated appeal was filed for all the four quarters. Subsequently, the assessee filed independent appeals for each quarter. Therefore, there was a delay in filing the appeals. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that this is due to misunderstanding of provisions of the Income-tax Act and the assessee cannot be penalized merely because the provisions of the Act with regard to procedure for filing of appeal was misunderstood. Moreover, the delay is very nominal in all appeals. Therefore, condoning the delay in filing the appeals and considering the appeals on merit may not prejudice the interests of Revenue in any way. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that condonation of delay in filing the appeals and directing the CIT(Appeals) to dispose the appeals on merit would promote the cause of justice. Accordingly, delay in filing all the appeals before the CIT(Appeals) is condoned.

The Ld. D.R. now contends before this Tribunal that the appeal itself is not maintainable since the appeal was filed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) under Section 154 of the Act. This contention of the Ld. D.R. has to be examined by the CIT(Appeals) while considering the appeals on merit. Suffice to say that the delay in filing the appeals is condoned and all the appeals are remitted back to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) shall re-examine the appeals on merit and thereafter decide the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking order.

With the above observation, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.