Case Law Details
Vasanthan Mukundan Peedikakkandy Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune)
At the outset, we note that this appeal was filed with a delay of 931 days before the CIT(A). An affidavit filed explaining the said delay which is reproduced by the CIT(A) in impugned order at page Nos.11 to 13. On perusal of the same, we note that the assessee is subjected to tax audit u/s 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) and have been deducting TDS and filing the returns on quarterly basis without fail. Further, we also note that the assessee received e-mail communication intimating the levy of Rs.18,934/- for late filing of TDS returns. The assessee contended that its Accounts staff are not aware of taxation laws, but TDS returns were filed on regular basis. The said staff members are only data entry operators having no knowledge of taxation laws. The assessee also contended that tax professionals engaged for filing income tax returns, tax audits and statutory audits prescribed under the Income Tax Act and the Companies Act was busy with their duties and also the compliances relating to GST Act. We note that the assessee did not intentionally file TDS returns belatedly and it was not disputed that the TDS returns were filed regularly without fail likewise, filing of appeal also before CIT(A). Therefore, it clearly shows that it was an inadvertent mistake without any malafide intention. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the reasons explained by the assessee and condoned the delay. Upon hearing both the parties before us, we find the assessee could able to make out sufficient cause which really prevented him in filing appeal in time. Therefore, delay of 931 days condoned and we direct the CIT(A) (NFAC), Delhi to decide the issues raised in the first appeal on merits and pass order in accordance with the law by giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
All these appeals by the assessee against common order dated 23-07-2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15.
2. Since the issue raised in all the appeals is similar based on same identical facts, therefore, upon hearing and with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear all the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
3. First, we shall take up ITA No.383/PUN/2021, Form No.26Q for A.Y. 2013-14 (Qrt-2).
4. The assessee raised three grounds of appeal, amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeals in the facts and circumstances.
5. At the outset, we note that this appeal was filed with a delay of 931 days before the CIT(A). An affidavit filed explaining the said delay which is reproduced by the CIT(A) in impugned order at page Nos.11 to 13. On perusal of the same, we note that the assessee is subjected to tax audit u/s 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) and have been deducting TDS and filing the returns on quarterly basis without fail. Further, we also note that the assessee received e-mail communication intimating the levy of Rs.18,934/- for late filing of TDS returns. The assessee contended that its Accounts staff are not aware of taxation laws, but TDS returns were filed on regular basis. The said staff members are only data entry operators having no knowledge of taxation laws. The assessee also contended that tax professionals engaged for filing income tax returns, tax audits and statutory audits prescribed under the Income Tax Act and the Companies Act was busy with their duties and also the compliances relating to GST Act. We note that the assessee did not intentionally file TDS returns belatedly and it was not disputed that the TDS returns were filed regularly without fail likewise, filing of appeal also before CIT(A). Therefore, it clearly shows that it was an inadvertent mistake without any malafide intention. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the reasons explained by the assessee and condoned the delay. Upon hearing both the parties before us, we find the assessee could able to make out sufficient cause which really prevented him in filing appeal in time. Therefore, delay of 931 days condoned and we direct the CIT(A) (NFAC), Delhi to decide the issues raised in the first appeal on merits and pass order in accordance with the law by giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
6. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of the issue in ITA Nos.384/PUN/2021 to 386/PUN/2021 & 390/PUN/2021 are mutatis mutandis similar to those in ITA No.383/PUN/2021. Following our view taken hereinabove, we direct the CIT(A) (NFAC), Delhi to decide the issues raised in the first appeal on merits and pass order in accordance with the law by giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
7. In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd June, 2022.
