TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HYDERABAD] wherein on identical facts noticing that there was no legal remedy prior to 1.6.2015 against an intimation u/s.200A of the Act, the Hyderabad Bench condoned delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). Considering the reasons given by the Assessee for condonation of delay and keeping in mind that technicalities should not stand in the way of rendering substantive justice, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeals deserves to be condoned. Accordingly the delay is condoned. - ITA Nos. 2117 to 2132/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2020 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President And Shri B R Baskaran, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Smt. Nishi Padma, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. ORDER PER BENCH These are a batch of 16 appeals filed by Assessee against a common order dated 22.4.2019 by CIT(Appeals)-13, Bangalore relating to assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. The assessee filed statement of tax deducted at source (TDS) for various quarters in Form No.24Q/26Q/27EQ for FY 2012-13 to 2014-15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 200, such statement shall be processed in the following manner, namely:- (a) the sums deductible under this Chapter shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:- (i) any arithmetical error in the statement; or (ii) an incorrect claim, apparent from any information in the statement; (b) the interest, if any, shall be computed on the basis of the sums deductible as computed in the statement; (c) the fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E; (d) the sum payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the deductor shall be determined after adjustment of the amount computed under clause (b) and clause (c) against any amount paid under section 200 or section 201 or section 234E and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest or fee; (e) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the deductor specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, him under clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment years prior to 1.6.2015. 5. The CIT(Appeals) found that the appeals filed by the Assessee were belated and there was no application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The CIT(A) in this regard has drawn a chart of dates on which the orders were passed by the AO, the date on which it was served and the date on which the appeals were filed. The said chart is reproduced below for the sake of clarity:- F.Y. Appeal No. Qtr Date of order u/s 200A(1) rws 234E/Date of service of order Date of filing of appeal Delay in filing appeal Short Dedun, Int. on short/ late payment etc. 234E Fees Total disputed 2012-13 10058/2018- 19 24Q-Q2 27/09/2016 28/02/2019 1219 410 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24Q-Q2 06/07/2014 01/03/2019 1669 0 52000 52000 11228/2018-19 24Q-Q3 06/04/2014 01/03/2019 1761 0 33600 33600 11226/2018-19 24Q-Q4 06/07/2014 01/03/2019 1669 0 9600 9600 11204/2018-19 26Q-Q1 21/11/2016 27/02/2019 798 2290 43800 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay in filing appeals before CIT(A). The reasons assigned by the Assessee for delay in filing appeal was that the Assessee s business was small and all affairs had to be looked after by the Assessee as proprietor. Further the TDS compliance are web based and system driven and the Assessee was unable to long into the traces and reply to the notices/orders within stipulated time. It was also stated that the TDS assessment orders which were subject matter of appeal before CIT(A) were not served on the Assessee. The Assessee has also stated that after the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateraj Singhvi (supra) , he was under the impression that no late fee will be levied u/s.234-E of the Act in respect of the period prior to 1.6.2015 as the enabling provisions u/s.200A of the Act, were introduced only from 1.6.2015. The Assessee however received a demand notice for late fee u/s.234-E of the Act and approached his auditor and they informed that the remedy was to file appeal against the orders u/s.200A of the Act. The Assessee submitted that he was not guilty of negligence and the delay was due to bonafide reasons set out above. The Assessee also placed rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present appeals before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Assessee reiterated stand of the Assessee as put forth before CIT(A). 9. The learned DR reiterated the stand of the revenue as reflected in the order of the CIT(A). 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned DR and also the grounds of appeal filed by the Assessee. The Assessee in the grounds of appeal has pointed out that an intimation u/s.200A of the Act became an appealable order u/s.246A of the Act, only consequent to amendment by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Prior to the said date an intimation u/s.200A was not appealable. At the outset, we observe that the Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mst. Katiji (supra) , has explained the principles that need to be kept in mind while considering an application for condonation of delay. The Hon ble Apex Court has emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The Court has also explained that a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging the appeal late. The Court has also explained that every day s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
