2015 (4) TMI 1309 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay in filling appeal before the CIT(A) - Levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) - failure of the assessee in furnishing the e-statements to the TDS Officer - substantial delay in furnishing the e-statements to the TDS Officers - reasons given by the assessee for the said delay includes lack of knowledge about the internet, lack of internet infrastructure, and amended provisions which are come into force by Finance (No.2) Act 2004, lack of man power in the Government offices etc - HELD THAT - We find the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeals before him despite the known and familiar problems troubling the citizens in general and the present assessee in particular. The problems are plenty that relates to infrastructure, man power, priority of duties of the staff. Further, we find that the assessee has duly deducted the tax and credited the same to the Government Account in time. It is also noticed this is the first default by the assessee in these matters. Considering the factual matrix specific to the assessee, we are of the opinion, that as the first time default, we should direct the Ld. CIT(A) condone the delay and adjudicate the issue on merits after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, all the issue raised in the appeals are set aside t the file of the Ld. CIT(A). - Appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues involved:
Levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) for failure to furnish e-statements to TDS Officer; Condonation of delay in filing appeals before CIT(A); Adjudication on merits after delay condonation.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k)
The appeals filed by the assessee challenged the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer for the delay in furnishing e-statements to the TDS Officers. The reasons cited for the delay included lack of internet knowledge and infrastructure, changes in procedures due to amendments, and shortage of manpower in government offices. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to the delay in filing them. However, the ITAT observed that the TDS was done correctly and the tax was credited on time to the Government Account. Considering this as the first default by the assessee and the genuine difficulties faced, the ITAT directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and hear the case on merits.

Issue 2: Condonation of delay in filing appeals before CIT(A)
The assessee sought condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to various challenges faced in complying with the law related to e-quarterly statements. The counsel highlighted problems such as staff shortages, lack of infrastructure, and procedural knowledge. The ITAT acknowledged the genuine difficulties faced by the assessee and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the case after condoning the delay, emphasizing the importance of providing an opportunity to be heard.

Issue 3: Adjudication on merits after delay condonation
After considering the arguments from both parties and reviewing the circumstances specific to the assessee, the ITAT concluded that the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned. The ITAT emphasized that this was the first default by the assessee and noted the challenges related to infrastructure and manpower. Therefore, the ITAT set aside all issues raised in the appeals to be adjudicated afresh by the CIT(A) after granting a hearing to the assessee. As a result, all appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the ITAT's judgment focused on the genuine difficulties faced by the assessee in complying with the requirements of furnishing e-statements, leading to the condonation of the delay in filing the appeals and a direction to reconsider the case on merits.