2019 (12) TMI 1424 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Recovery proceedings - Service of notice or communication - assessee, filed 19 appeals belatedly, varying from 807 days delay to 1567 days of delay in filing the appeals against the orders passed by the CPC, Bangalore U/s. 200A - MD of the assessee pleaded that the impugned electronic communications were not brought to the notice of the assessee, and he himself was not conversant as well as there were problems in the family as well as in the business side at the said point of time - HELD THAT - When the recovery notice dated 04.03.2019 was received, manually, the issues were brought to his notice and he immediately took steps to file the above appeals, which caused the delay in filing each of these appeals, which is not deliberate but bonafide and beyond his control and therefore, he sought the condonation of delay in respect of each of these appeals. It was also pleaded that though the impugned orders were passed from December 2014 to December 2016, till the recovery notice served, manually on 04.03.2019, the Revenue had not sent any other communication in respect of any of the demand raised in the impugned orders. Therefore, it is pleaded that the reason canvassed by the assessee towards the delay in filing these appeals have sufficient and reasonable cause and hence, it was prayed to condone the delay in filing each of these appeals. We find that the reason canvassed by the assessee towards the delay in filing the impugned appeals appears reasonable and sufficient. Revenue claimed to have served the impugned orders electronically, the assessee pleads that they were not brought to its notice and the Revenue has not sent any further communication till the date of recovery notice served on 04.03.2019 manually. Assessee was unaware of such orders. When there is a change from one system, say the manual system to the other system, say the electronic system , apart from relying the rules and regulations, the Revenue as an administrator of the Act must also guide the assessee in enabling them to comply with the systemic changes in a reasonable manner. Atleast in those cases, like this case, where the demand made on the assessee is pending for long time and the assessee has not responded, the Revenue should also have used other mode of communication, mentioned in sub-section (1) to section 282 of the Act. In this case, the Revenue has not brought to our notice any such communication with the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the reasons canvassed by the assessee towards the delay in filing the impugned appeals appears reasonable and sufficient.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals against the orders passed by the CPC, Bangalore U/s. 200A for various quarters in the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16.

Analysis:
The assessee filed 19 appeals belatedly, citing reasons for the delay ranging from 807 to 1567 days. The MD explained that the delay was due to not being aware of the change to e-system of service, family and business problems, and the recovery notice manually received in March 2019. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals for lack of supporting material. The assessee sought condonation of delay and a decision on merits. The ld.AR argued that proper opportunity was not given, and the Revenue had not taken steps to collect the demand before March 2019. Relying on legal precedents, the delay was requested to be condoned for justice to be served.

The ld. DR supported the ld.CIT(A)'s decision, referring to a notification on electronic service of notices. According to the ld. DR, the date of transmission of the order to the assessee is deemed as the date of service. The ld. DR upheld the ld.CIT(A)'s orders based on this premise.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and found the reasons for delay provided by the assessee to be reasonable. The MD was unaware of the electronic communications due to various issues and took immediate steps upon manual receipt of the recovery notice. The Tribunal noted the lack of further communication from the Revenue till March 2019. Condoning the delay, the appeals were remitted back to the ld.CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal emphasized that in cases of system changes, like from manual to electronic, the Revenue should guide assessees to comply effectively. As the Revenue had not used other modes of communication, the Tribunal found the reasons for delay reasonable. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals was condoned, and the appeals were remitted back to the ld.CIT(A) for further consideration.

In conclusion, all the appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the decision pronounced on December 27, 2019, in Chennai.