THE MERCHANGS SOUDHARDA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA,CHITRADURGA vs. ITO, CHITRADURGA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 320/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 January 2017AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay convincing and held that the CIT(Appeals) ought to have condoned it. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the delay was condoned.

What were the facts?

The assessee cooperative banks filed appeals before the CIT(Appeals) which were dismissed due to a delay of 64 days in filing. The assessee contended that they had sufficient cause for the delay and requested condonation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeals, and whether the demand for TDS and interest was sustainable on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep C. C.A
For Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, Jt.CIT(ITAT-3) (DR)
Hearing: 25.01.2017Pronounced: 25.01.2017

O R D E R Per Bench

These appeals are preferred by the assessees against the order of CIT(Appeals) inter alia on common grounds. For the sake of reference, the grounds of appeal raised in are extracted hereunder:-

“1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant, is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That the learned Commissioner on Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay even though the appellant had sufficient and reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal.

3. That the learned Commissioner on Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the condonation of delay on the ground that the appeal was filed mere after thought.

4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have decided the case on merits and ought to have held that the appellant is not liable to deduct tax at source on the interest paid to its members and order u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) ought to have quashed.

5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the demand u/s. 201(1) and interest u/s. 201(1A) is not sustainable in law. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore to add, delete, amend or otherwise modify one or more of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”

2.

During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessees has invited our attention to the fact that the CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeals being barred by limitation; whereas the delay in filing of the appeal was 64 days only. He further contended that before the CIT(Appeals), the assessees explained the delay in filing of the appeals, but instead of taking a lenient view, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessees. The ld. counsel further contended that in the interest of justice, the order of CIT(Appeals) may be set aside and matter be restored to his file.

3.

On merits, he has contended that the impugned issue is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal and the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in favour of the assessees.

4.

The ld. DR did not dispute these facts.

5.

Having carefully examined the orders of lower authorities in the light of rival submissions, we find that the CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeals of the assessees on account of delay in filing of the appeals. We have carefully examined the reasons for delay in filing of the appeals before the CIT(Appeals) and being convinced with the explanation, we are of the view that the CIT(Appeals) ought to have condoned the delay in filing of the appeals. We accordingly set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) and condone the delay in filing of the appeals before the CIT(Appeals).

Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of CIT(Appeals) with a direction to readjudicate the impugned issues on merit, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessees.

6.

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on this 25th day of January, 2017.

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →