9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 999 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - sufficient cause - DRM was not aware whether any order can be passed against it and whether such order is appealable - HELD THAT - Factual matrix of the case with regard to condonation of delay. We had also carefully gone through the evidences placed on record for the efforts done by the assessee for furnishing requires returns which includes the internal communication of the assessee to the senior employees for submitting PAN details, intimation by the Income tax Department for deputing personnel for verification of TDS and TCS details etc. After going through the detailed reasons given for delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), we observe that there was a reasonable and bonafide cause for delay. In MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT held that in Sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay should be interpreted with a view to even-handed justice on merits in preference to approach which scuttles a decision on merits. The more power to condone the delay is conferred with a view to enable the courts to do substantial justice to litigants by disposing of the cases on merits. Considering we condone the delay and matter is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding on merit after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. - Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Adjudication of the appeal on merits. 3. Demand for short deduction of TDS and interest on short deduction of TDS. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The assessee, a government department, faced dismissal of its appeals by the CIT (A) due to a delay in filing. The assessee explained the delay by referencing similar cases from assessment years 2010-11 and 2014-15, where the Tribunal had condoned the delay. The Tribunal considered the reasons provided by the assessee, which included internal communication issues and lack of awareness about the appealability of the orders. The Tribunal noted the precedent set in ITA Nos. 1464 and 1467/JP/2018, where delays were condoned under similar circumstances. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantial justice over procedural technicalities, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & ors., which supports a flexible interpretation of "sufficient cause" to ensure justice on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay, allowing the appeals to be heard on merits. 2. Adjudication of the Appeal on Merits: The CIT (A) had dismissed the appeals on technical grounds without addressing the merits. The Tribunal, after condoning the delay, directed the CIT (A) to adjudicate the appeals on their substantive merits. This directive ensures that the assessee's contentions regarding the demands raised by the AO are thoroughly examined, providing the assessee an opportunity to present its case comprehensively. 3. Demand for Short Deduction of TDS and Interest: The assessee challenged the AO's demand of ?71,854, which included ?46,833 for short deduction of TDS and ?24,751 as interest. The AO had deemed the assessee in default for not obtaining PAN numbers of employees, leading to a higher TDS rate of 20%. The assessee argued that it had complied with the normal TDS obligations and that the demand was arbitrary and without basis. The Tribunal, by setting aside the matter to the CIT (A), provided a pathway for these issues to be re-examined in light of the assessee's compliance efforts and the internal communications regarding PAN submissions. The Tribunal's decision underscores the need for a detailed review of the facts to ascertain the legitimacy of the demand. Conclusion: The Tribunal's judgment emphasizes the importance of substantial justice over procedural delays, ensuring that the assessee's appeals are heard on their merits. By condoning the delay and directing a merit-based adjudication, the Tribunal has paved the way for a thorough examination of the assessee's compliance with TDS obligations and the legitimacy of the demands raised by the AO. The judgment aligns with judicial precedents that advocate for a flexible and justice-oriented approach to procedural delays.
|
