TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnal processes cannot be a valid reason for condoning the delay and merely because the assessee is a public institution, it shouldn t expect any advantage over any other private entity. At the same time, respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Anil Kumar Nehru [ 2019 (1) TMI 1075 - SC ORDER ] and in the interest of substantial Justice, we hereby condone the delay subject to cost of Rs 500/- for each of the sixteen appeals totaling to Rs 8,000/- to which the ld AR has agreed. Validity of orders under sec 201(1)/201(1A) - period of limitation - HELD THAT:- TDS statements in Form 26Q have been filed by the respective branches of the assessee bank for each of the four quarters pertaining to financial year 2009-10 and financial 2010-11 and considering the limitation period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the last of the quarterly statements have been filed, we find that the limitation period for the financial year 2009- 10 relevant to assessment year 2010-11 expires on 31.03.2013 and for the financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12 expires on 31.03.2014 whereas the assessment orders u/s 201(1)/201(IA) ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocedural aspects of income tax assessment. Even, they have no idea regarding filing of appeal within 30 days of received of order. Moreover, the concerned at the branch was transferred shortly after which led to oblivion towards the matter. Since then due to continuous changes of branch managers and no centralized handling of each individual branch orders, unintentionally branches have failed to comply with same. Also due to corona virus pandemic in last 2 years, the matter has been delayed. It was submitted that the Zonal Office of Bank of India, Nagpur thereafter took up the matter for all the branches of Nagpur Zone and appointed a centralized consultant for all the branches for filing of appeals and compliances of sec 201(1) and sec 201(1A) notices and orders. After that, the consultant has filed appeals for all the branches in co-ordination with Income Tax Department and complied with all the pending cases and notices. Considering the above difficulties, we request the Tribunal to condone the delay in filing of appeals and consider the appeal of appellant Bank. 4. It was submitted that the bank did not derive any benefit from delay in filing of appeals; rather it suffered a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present appeal. It was submitted that the principle of equality has to be applied between the private and public institutions except in compelling circumstances, the ignorance of law, the appellant s neglect or failure to seek legal advice is not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. There is clear negligence or sheer carelessness on the part of the assessee for the inordinate delay in filing the present appeal. It was further submitted that lack of internal processes for filing of appeal, when the provisions of TDS were in existence since long in statute, cannot constitute sufficient cause. The appellant in his submissions has not satisfactory explained each delay of delay in filing the present appeal. It was submitted that in light of the above, the fact that the assessee has neither substantiated the statement made before the ld. CIT(A) nor the statements so submitted are genuine cause of delay, the ld.CIT(A) has rightly held that the said statement cannot constitute sufficient cause and has rightly rejected the assessee prayer for condonation of delay and the appeal was dismissed in limine as the same has been submitted beyond the prescribed time limit. It was further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sses cannot be a valid reason for condoning the delay and merely because the assessee is a public institution, it shouldn t expect any advantage over any other private entity. At the same time, respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Anil Kumar Nehru (supra) and in the interest of substantial Justice, we hereby condone the delay subject to cost of Rs 500/- for each of the sixteen appeals totaling to Rs 8,000/- to which the ld AR has agreed and submitted his acceptance on behalf of the assessee. The assessee is directed to deposit the said sum and submit the proof thereof to the Assessing officer under intimation to the Registry. In light of the same, the ground of appeal is disposed off and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 7. Now, coming to the ground No.2 of the assessee in respect of its Itwari Branch wherein the assessee has challenged the order of Assessing Officer as passed beyond the limitation period provided under section 201(3)(i) of the Act. 8. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee in respect of its Itwari Branch filed quarterly TDS statement in Form 26Q for Q1 on 16.09.2010, for Q2 on 25.06.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Assessing Officer beyond the limitation period so provided under section 201(3)(i) of the Act. In support, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High court in case of Tata Teleservice v/s Union Of India and Anr (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj). Further, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Pune Benches of the Tribunal in case of Bank of India v/s ITO, TDS, Kolhapur (ITA No. 119/Pune/2019 others dated 25.07.2019) wherein the order passed by the Assessing Officer was held as barred by the limitation. 10. It was submitted that the Pune Benches decision squarely applies in the facts of the present case and other cases of the assessee which pertains to A.Y 2010 11 and 2011 12 respectively. Further, reliance was placed on Sodexo SVC India Pvt.Ltd. v/s DCIT, Mumbai in (ITA No.619 620/Mum/2019, dated 06.03.2019). Further, our reference was drawn to the following table containing the dated of filing of the TDS statements and the date of passing of the order by the Assessing officer u/s 201(1)/201(1A) which reads as under: TAN NAME OF BRANCH FY Date of filing of Q126Q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NGPB01584C Mahal, Branch 2010-11 7.8.2010 22.10.2010 17.01.2011 6.7.2011 22-Mar- 18 NGPB02828A besa, Branch 2010-11 15.07.2010 06.12.2010 15.01.2011 14.05.2011 21-Mar-18 NGPB01586E Dharampeth, Branch 2010-11 05.08.2010 28.10.2010 15.01.2011 19.04.2011 27-Mar- 18 NGPB01825F Mowar, Branch 2010-11 15.07.2010 15.10.2010 15.01.2011 18.04.2011 21-Mar- 18 NGPB01638A Nagpurmain, Branch 2010-11 03.02.2011 03.02.2011 03.02.2011 18.05.2011 21-Mar- 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Devalamati Branch 2010-11 27.03.2017 3. Dongargaon Branch 2010-11 27.03.2017 4. Dharampeth Branch 2010-11 29.03.2017 5. Nagpurmain Branch 2010-11 29.03.2017 6. Shitaiwadi Branch 2010-11 29.03.2017 7. Ajnisquare Branch 2011-12 26.03.2018 8. Bazargaon Branch 2011-12 23.03.2018 9. Gandhibagh Branch 2011-12 27.03.2018 10. Itwari Branch 2011-12 27.03.2018 11. Mahal Branch 2011-12 22.03.2018 12. Besa Branch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act by Finance Act 2014? 14. The Hon ble High Court thereafter referring to the earlier amendments to section 201(3) and the latest amendment by the Finance Act, 2014 held that wherever the Parliament wanted to make provisions applicable retrospectively, it has been so provided and the amendment by the Finance Act has been specifically stated to be with effect from 1.10.2014 and held as under: 12.14. At this stage, it is required to be noted that earlier section 201(3) of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2012 amended on 28/5/2012 was specifically made applicable retrospectively w.e.f. 1/14/2012, whereby limitation period was substituted from four years to six years for passing orders where TDS Statement had not been filed. However, section 201(3) of the Act as amended by Finance Act No.2 of 2014, as mentioned in the memorandum of the Finance Bill No.2 of 2014 is stated to have effect from 1st October, 2014. Thus, wherever the Parliament / Legislature wanted to make provisions applicable retrospectively, it has been so provided. 15. The Hon ble High Court thereafter, in Para 15 has held that section 201(3), as amended by Finance Act No.2 of 2014 shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he financial year in which the statement is filed in a case where the statement referred to in section 200 has been filed; (ii) six years from the end of the financial year in which payment is made or credit is given, in any other case; Provided that such order for a financial year commencing on or before the 1st day of April, 2007 may be passed at any time on or before the 31st day of March, 2011. 18. The above provisions are applicable to the year under consideration and they deal with two scenarios, namely, (i) where the statements of the TDS are filed in a financial year and (ii) where such TDS statements are not filed. The proviso provides for the orders of a financial year commencing on or before 1.4.2007. Accordingly, the time limits are specified. In a case where the statements were filed, the due date for passing an order u/s 201(3)(i) of the Act is two years from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed. In the other group of cases, where the statements were not filed, the due date u/s 201(3)(ii) of the Act is 6 years from the end of the financial year in which the statement is made or credit is given. 19. Set of 14 Appeals: Applyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a), the assessee filed the TDS statements for the assessment year 2010-11 for all the 11 appeals (i.e. ITANos.135, 136, 134, 129, 132, 143, 128, 140, 124, 142 145/PUN/2019) for all the 4 quarters. There are 11 appeals in this group and they relates to the assessment year 2010-11. In this bunch of 11 appeals, the financial year in which the TDS statements are filed, covers the financial years 2009-10 and 2010- 11. Considering the fact, the last quarter of the statement is filed in the financial year 2010-11, the time limits available to the Assessing Officer to pass an order u/s 3(i) of section 201 of the Act is two years from the end of the said financial year 2010-11. Thus, in that case, the Assessing Officer is under obligation to pass an order in these circumstances by 31st March, 2013. 25. Whereas the Assessing Officer passed the order in these 11 appeals in the year 2016 and 2017 respectively i.e. subsequent to the due date specified in the Act. 26. From this point of view and the interpretation of the Statute, the orders passed by the Assessing Officer are without any valid jurisdiction. Accordingly, the said relevant legal issue raised by the assessee in all t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
