TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hyderabad Bench in the case of MSV IT Solutions Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward 16(4) [ 2018 (10) TMI 1774 - ITAT 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. - ITA No. 2175 to 2182/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 22-1-2020 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President And Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Mukesh R., CA For the Respondent : Shri S. Tamil Selvan, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru ORDER PER BENCH These are a batch of 8 appeals filed by Assessee against a common order dated 8.8.2019 by CIT(Appeals)-10, Bangalore relating to assessment years 2013-14 2014-15. 2. The assessee filed statement of tax deducted at source (TDS) for various quarters in Form No.24Q/26Q for FYs 2012-13 2013-14 (AYs 2013-14 to 2014-15). The statement was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions of section 234E of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.7.2012. Section 200A of the Act is a provision which deals with how a return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act has to be processed and it reads as follows:- Processing of statements of tax deducted at source . 200A. (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source or a correction statement has 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 statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 wherein the Hon ble Karnataka High Court held that amendment made u/s. 200A providing that fee u/s. 234E of the Act could be computed at the time of processing of return and issue of intimation has come into effect only from 1.6.2015 and had only prospective effect and therefore, no computation of fee u/s.234E of the Act for delayed filing of return of TDS while processing a return of TDS u/s.234E of the Act could have been made for tax deducted at source for the assessment years prior to 1.6.2015. 6. The CIT(Appeals) found that the appeals filed by the Assessee were belated and the following was the delay in filing appeal before him:- FY Order passed date Date of filing No. of days delay 2012-13 08.11.2013 13.03.2019 1921 days 14.06.2014 13.03.2019 1703 days 29.08.2016 13.03.2019 895 days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst 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 reliance on decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandramani (TS 5109-SC-1996-O) wherein it was held that the expression sufficient cause should be considered with pragmatism and in a justice oriented approach rather than technically and CMJ Foundation Vs. Principal CIT (TS 6571-ITAT-2019(Gauhati)-O) wherein it was held that bonafide belief that appeal should not be filed is sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Assessee also relied on the decision in the case of Collector of land acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji Others AIR 1987 1353 (SC) wherein principles regarding condonation of delay have been explained by the Hon ble Supreme Court. 8. The CIT(A) however was of the view that there was a difference between marginal delay and inordinate delay and made reference to a decision of ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of T. Krishna Vs. ACIT(IT(SS)A.No.23 25/Hyd/2011) and held that the Assessee should explain the delay as one that occurred due to circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
