Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद�यायपीठ‘ए’अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 2321, 2322 & 2323/Ahd/2013 िनधार्रणवषर्/Assessment Year: 2010-11 to 2012-13 M/s. Stallion Finstock Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Joint Commissioner of 101, Shitalnath Apartment, Income-tax New VikasGruh Road, Paldi, TDS Range, Ahmedabad-380007 Ahmedabad PAN : AAFCS 7281 R [ अपीलाथीर्/ (Appellant) प्र� यथीर्/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri H.V. Vasa, CA Revenue by : Shri N.P. Patel, Sr DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09/09/2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 05/10/2017 आदेश/O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These three appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11 to 2012-13 are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-XXI, Ahmedabad dated 19.07.2013, arising out of separate orders passed by the JCIT, TDS Range, Ahmedabad of even date i.e. 29.11.2012 under Section 272A(2)(k) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). As the issue raised in all these appeals is common and relating to same assessee, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The grievances raised by the assessee are to the effect that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in :- i) dismissing the appeal as time barred without giving an opportunity for condonation of delay in filing the appeal;
ITA Nos. 2321, 2322 & 2323/Ahd/2013 M/s. Stallion FinstockPvt Ltd vs. JCIT AY :2010-11 to 2012-13 - 2–
ii) levying penalty of Rs.44,000/ (AY 2010-11), Rs.43,900/- (AY2011- 12) and Rs.24,174/- (AY 2012-13) applying the provisions of Section 272A(2)(k) of the Act considering that the assessee had erred in making late payment of TDS and filing statement of TDS late in Form No.26Q. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, in all three assessment years under consideration, the assessee has filed TDS statements in Form 26Q for quarter 1, 2, 3 and 4 after the prescribed date. The Assessing Officer observed that all the three assessment years, the assessee failed to file the TDS statements in time and therefore, committed deliberate violation of law. Accordingly, he imposed penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) of the Act vide order even dated 29.11.2012 for all the assessment years, calculated on the basis of number of days delay in filing quarterly TDS return.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the same was filed late by 45 days. 5. At the time of hearing before us, learned Counsel for the assessee pleaded that a proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the asseasee; therefore, the issue raised in these appeals be remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after providing adequate opportunity of the being heard to the assessee. 6. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable as the CIT(A) has passed order u/s 249(2) by dismissing the appeal in limine as same was submitted beyond the prescribed time limit. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We find that the assessee has filed appeal in Form No.35 before the
ITA Nos. 2321, 2322 & 2323/Ahd/2013 M/s. Stallion FinstockPvt Ltd vs. JCIT AY :2010-11 to 2012-13 - 3– ld. CIT(A) on 18.02.2013. The ld. CIT(A) vide order sheet entry dated 01.07.2013 required the assesse to submit the evidence of receipt of the order of the demand notice issued by the Assessing Officer, which was not furnished by the assessee. However, on verification of the assessment records, it was seen by the ld. CIT(A) that the said order was served upon the assessee on 03.12.2012, resulting into 45 days delay in filing the appeal and, therefore, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, without looking into the merits of the case. We find that there was a ‘state of confusion’ about the date of receipt of notice at the end of assessee which resulted in delay in filing this appeal. Therefore, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to condone the above stated delay of 45 days in filing of assessee’s appeals before the lower authority and direct the ld. CIT(A) to decide all these three assessee’s appeals on merits in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing. 8. In the result, all three appeals of the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 5th October 2017 at Ahmedabad.
Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. GODARA) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated, 05/10/2017 आदेश की प्रितिलिप अग्रेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथीर् / The Appellant 1. प्र�यथीर् / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुक्त / Concerned CIT आयकर आयुक्त ( अपील ) 4. / The CIT(A)- िवभागीय प्रितिनिध , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 5. गाडर् फाईल /Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Ahmedabad