9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is very long, we feel that the assessee has reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing these appeals against intimation u/s. 200A of the Act passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 200A of the Act before CIT(A). Since, we noticed reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing these appeals before CIT(A), we reverse the orders of CIT(A) and condone the delay. We, set aside all these appeals to the file of CIT(A). - 2173 to 2187/Chny/2019 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2020 - Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice President And Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Ms. Nitya Sankaran, C.A For the Revenue : Mrs. Vijayaprabha, JCIT ORDER PER BENCH: In all these appeals of the assessee, the first common issue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) not condoning the delay in filing of these appeals before him. The facts and circumstances are identical in all the appeals, hence, the grounds raised in all the years are being reproduced from ITA No. 2173/Chny/ 2019 for assessment year 2013- 14: 1. For that the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case to the extent prejudicial to the interest of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25.06.2016 Date of filing CIT(A) appeal against order u/s. 154 09.06.2018 09.06.2018 09.06.2018 09.06.2018 Date of CIT(A) order against 154 appeal 27.06.2018 27.06.2018 27.06.2018 27.06.2018 Date of filing appeal before ITAT against CIT(A) order 27.08.2018 27.08.2018 27.08.2018 27.08.2018 Date of ITAT hearing 08.01.2019 08.01.2019 08.01.2019 08.01.2019 Date of withdrawal of appeal before ITAT 08.01.2019 08.01.2019 08.01.2019 08.01.2019 Date of filing appeal before CIT(A) against intimation u/.s 200A 28.02.2019 28.02.2019 28.02.2019 28.02.2019 Date of CIT(A) order against 200A appeal 20.05.2019 20.05.2019 20.05.2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20.05.2019 20.05.2019 20.05.2019 No. of days delay in filing appeal against 200A intimation 1646 1646 1646 1646 1650 ITA No. 2181/Chny/2019 2182/Chny/2019 2183/Chny/2019 2185/Chny/2019 2184/Chny/2019 A.Y and Quarter 2015-16(Q1) 2015-16(Q2) 2015-16(Q3) 2015-16(Q4) 2015-16(Q4) Particulars Form 26Q Form 26Q Form 26Q Form 24Q Form 26Q Date of (receipt of) intimation u/s. 200A 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 26.06.2015 05.10.2015 07.08.2015 Date of order u/s. 154 26.06.2016 25.06.2016 30.04.2016 02.07.2016 20.06.2016 Date of filing CIT(A) appeal against order u/s. 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l before CIT(A) against intimation u/.s 200A 04.03.2019 Date of CIT(A) order against 200A appeal 20.05.2019 No. of days delay in filing appeal against 200A intimation 1192 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a charitable trust and has filed appeal before CIT(A) against the intimation u/s. 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act ) passed by DCIT, Central Processing Cell (TDS), Chennai. The assessee contended that these appeals should have been filed within 30 days from the service of intimation u/s. 200A of the Act before CIT(A), the details of each appeal is reproduced above. These appeals were however filed admittedly with the delay beyond the time allowed for filing of these appeals, delay ranging from 876 to 1192 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse stated assesse was pursuing alternative remedy before the AO and consequent appellate proceedings against the orders passed u/s. 154 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us stated that the assessee received order passed u/s. 154 of the Act i.e. rectification order on the instance of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... line on 28.02.2019 for various quarters indicating the total delay as mentioned in the above table. 5. In view of the above reasons, the Ld. Counsel prayed that the delay was due to the fact that the alternative remedy being pursued by the assesse and due to this reason the assessee could not file appeals against intimation u/s. 200A of the Act and thereby the reasons were beyond the control of the assessee and this being reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing of the appeals on time, the delay should have condoned. In this connection, the Ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of Hon ble Madras high Court in the case of CIT vs. KSP Shanmugavel Nadar [1985] 153 ITR 596 (Mad), wherein it is held by the Hon ble High Court that the assessee pursuing the alternative remedies, the time taken in this proceedings should be taken into account while determining whether the assessee has sufficient cause for not presenting the appeals in time or not? 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR could not controvert the above stated facts and reasons for the delay. She could not attribute any malafide for delay in filing of these appeals. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and gon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
