BANK OF INDIA, DHARAMPETH,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, RANGE-1, NAGPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: HON’BLE SHRI S. S. GODARA & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
(Through Virtual hearing from ITAT, Pune) BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Assessment Sr Appeal No Appellant Respondent Year
Bank of India, 2010-11 1 ITA No 003/NAG/2023 TAN :NGPB01654C Branch : Itwari, Nagpur Bank of India, 2 ITA No 004/NAG/2023 TAN :NGPB01586E 2010-11 Branch : Dharampeth, Nagpur Bank of India, 3 ITA No 005/NAG/2023 TAN :NGPB01703C 2010-11 Joint Commissioner of Branch : Reshimbaug, Nagpur Income Tax-(TDS), Bank of India, Range-1 Nagpur 4 ITA No 006/NAG/2023 TAN :NGPB02965E 2010-11 Branch : Dongargaon, Nagpur Bank of India, 5 ITA No 007/NAG/2023 TAN :NGPB02965E 2011-12 Branch : Dongargaon, Nagpur Bank of India, 2010-11 6 ITA No 008/NAG/2023 TAN :NGPB01715A Branch : Butibori, Nagpur द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Mr Pratik Sadrani [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 22/03/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22/03/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; This bunch of six appeals of the assessee instituted u/s 253(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] challenging respective orders of National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] passed u/s 250 of the Act dismissing the respective appeals assailed against levy of penalty u/s 271C of the Act, on the ground of limitation.
ITAT-Nagpur Page 1 of 6
Bank of India Vs JCIT(TDS) ITA No.003 & 008/NAG/2023
Since the facts and solitary issue involved in these six appeals are identical, on the request of rival parties, and for the sake of brevity these are heard together for a common and consolidated order. 3. Briefly stated common facts of this bunch of cases are; 3.1 The assessee is a branch of Public Sector Banking Company viz; Bank of India owned by Central Government of India, in whose case an order u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act was passed by the Ld. ITO-TDS thereby raising a demand on account of failure to deduct tax at source [‘TDS’ hereinafter] u/s 194A of the Act from various amounts of interest paid/credited to various parties/customers on bank deposits etc.
3.2 On a reference from Ld. ITO-TDS about the assessee’s failure to deduct TDS u/s 194A of the Act, the jurisdictional Ld. JCIT initiated the penalty proceedings and after considering the submission of the appellant, has culminated the proceedings by imposing penalty u/s 271C of the Act equal to 100% of TDS sought to be deducted from the interest etc., paid/credited to various parties/customers etc.
3.3 Aggrieved by the penalty orders, the assessee instituted separate appeals before Ld. NFAC u/s 246A(1)(c) of the Act. Without going into merits of case, in the absence of evidence justifying/explaining inordinate delay in filing these appeals, the Ld. NFAC placing reliance on catena of judicial precedents came to dismissed these appeals in limine on a technical ground of limitation.
ITAT-Nagpur Page 2 of 6
Bank of India Vs JCIT(TDS) ITA No.003 & 008/NAG/2023
3.4 Aggrieved by the orders of Ld. NFAC, the assessee came in the present appeals seeking reversal of dismissal of respective impugned orders.
During the course of virtual hearing, Ld. AR at the outset submitted that, the Co-ordinate bench vide its orders in ITA No. 337/NAG/2022 dt. 23/08/2023 and ITA No. 153/NAG/2022 dt. 09/06/2022 adjudicated the quantum issue in favour of assessee holding that, order passed by Ld. ITO- TDS u/s 201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) of the Act is barred by limitation. In the event following ‘foundation-superstructure theory’ the consequential orders passed levying penalty has no legs to stand now. Per contra, the Ld. Mr Marathe solidifying the facts submitted that, since impugned orders did not pass through its merits, therefore the contentions of appellant is pointless here. It is argued that, there was inordinate delay in filing appeals against the imposition of penalty u/s 271C of the Act before Ld. NFAC and appellant did fail to establish any reasonable cause beyond such unreasonable delay. Moreover, the appellant has merely filed these appeals without any petition for condonation and affidavit sufficiently explaining reasonable cause, in the event the Ld. NFAC dismissed them which cannot be faulted with now merely on the basis of quantum adjudication. Therefore, this bunch of six appeals of the appellant deserves no relief in the present adjudication.
We have heard rival parties’ submissions and perused the material placed on record in light of rule 18 of ITAT-Rules. At the outset we note that, against
ITAT-Nagpur Page 3 of 6
Bank of India Vs JCIT(TDS) ITA No.003 & 008/NAG/2023
the imposition of penalty u/s 271C of the Act, the appellant admittedly instituted appeals with substantial delay in each case which is tabulated herein below for ready reference and better understanding; Date of No of days Institution of Sr Appeal No Assessment Year appeal before delayed Ld. NFAC 1 ITA No 003/NAG/2023 2010-11 16/01/2018 09/01/2021 1056 2 ITA No 004/NAG/2023 2010-11 26/10/2017 09/01/2021 1136 3 ITA No 005/NAG/2023 2010-11 17/01/2018 09/01/2021 1053 4 ITA No 006/NAG/2023 2010-11 27/09/2017 09/01/2021 1164 5 ITA No 007/NAG/2023 2011-12 26/12/2018 11/10/2019 256 6 ITA No 008/NAG/2023 2010-11 17/01/2018 09/01/2021 1053
As can be noted from above tabulation that, these appeals were filed with inordinate delays and admittedly without accompanying therewith petition for condonation of delay stating therein circumstance owning to which the delays occurred/caused. It is also on record that, the appellant having filed these appeals did fail to showcase to the satisfaction of appellate authority that there were reasonable cause beyond such inordinate delays so as to entitle to exoneration from penalty by virtue of section 273B of the Act. In the event the Ld. NFAC was constrained to dismiss the appeals in limine on technical grounds of limitation without touching or adjudicating merits thereof.
We however note that, while dismissing these appeals in limine on the grounds of limitation, the Ld. NFAC disregarded the fact that substantial part
ITAT-Nagpur Page 4 of 6
Bank of India Vs JCIT(TDS) ITA No.003 & 008/NAG/2023
of the delay in instituting the appeals [i.e. period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022] stand excluded for the purposes of limitation by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgement in MA-21-&-29/2022 dt. 10/01/2022. But it is also on records that only balance delay remained unexplained by the appellant.
In our considered view, non-filing of petition for condonation and explaining reasons of delay sufficiently is a technical but curable defect. Therefore, these defects by no means can solitarily capable of depriving the appellant from seeking adjudication on merits, unless such delay appearing to be deliberate. On the other hand, perusal of records in no manner is capable of suggesting us that the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. NFAC by the appellant bank/branch was deliberate. Therefore, this technical reason should not take away the right of appellant to contest its cases on merits. In ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported at 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), their Hon’ble Lordship have categorically held that, ‘no one should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.’ On the other hand, the Revenue did not bring anything to suggest that the delays in filing these appeals were thoughtful.
Further placing reliance on recent judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in ‘Raheem Shah & ANR Vs Govind Singh & Ors’ [CIVIL APPEAL
ITAT-Nagpur Page 5 of 6
Bank of India Vs JCIT(TDS) ITA No.003 & 008/NAG/2023
NO. 4628 OF 2023], we are heedful to state that, dismissal of appeals on technical ground of limitation were unwarranted in these cases because while dealing with tax litigation, in the words of Hon’ble Lordships, the appellate authorities under the Act are a quasi-judicial authority and they are expected to adopt justice oriented approach rather resorting to iron-cast technical one.
In view of aforestated discussion, without offering any comments on merits of the case, in the larger interest of justice we deem it fit to set-aside these impugned orders and remit them back to the Ld. NFAC with a direction to deal therewith de-nova in accordance with law after considering the orders of Co-ordinate bench in appellant’s own pressed into service to which it had no benefit of consideration and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. Ergo ordered accordingly leaving all rights and liabilities of rival parties open.
In result, these six appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Friday, 22nd day of March, 2024.
-S/d- -S/d- S. S. GODARA G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; दिन ांक / Dated : 22nd day of March, 2024. आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr.CIT Concerned. 4. The NFAC Delhi 5. DR, ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur 6.ग र्डफ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / By Order वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्य य दिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
ITAT-Nagpur Page 6 of 6
