TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 891
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a lead case. 3. In ground No.1, the assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the prayer of the assessee for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a Branch of Bank of India, Nagpur Circle. The branches of Bank of India, Nagpur Circle received orders under sec 201(1)/201(1A) for FY 2009-10 in month if April 2017 and for FY 2010-11, orders under sec 201(1)/201(1A) are received in month of April 2018. The order copies were received individual branch wise and hence, demand notices were received at branch address. Branch staff and Branch managers are generally not aware about intricacies and procedural aspects of income tax assessment. Even, they have no idea regarding filing of appeal within 30 days of received of order. Moreover, the concerned at the branch was transferred shortly after which led to oblivion towards the matter. Since then due to continuous changes of branch managers and no centralized handling of each individual branch orders, unintentionally branches have failed to comply with same. Also due to corona virus pandemic in last 2 years, the matter has been delayed. It was submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by Ld. CIT(A) be set aside. 5. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that in the lead case of the assessee in ITAT No. 163/Nag/2022, the Assessing Officer has passed the order on 27.03.2018 and which was duly served on the assessee on 29.03.2018 and the appeal was e-filed before the ld.CIT(A) on 09.01.2021. Hence, there was a delay of around 987 days in filing the appeal from the date of the service of the order. It was submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has considered the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the period of limitation has been extended on account of pandemic COVID-19 and even after excluding the said period, there is a still a delay of '687' days in filing the present appeal. It was submitted that the principle of equality has to be applied between the private and public institutions except in compelling circumstances, the ignorance of law, the appellant's neglect or failure to seek legal advice is not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. There is clear negligence or sheer carelessness on the part of the assessee for the inordinate delay in filing the present appeal. It was further submitted that lack of internal processes for filing of appeal, when the provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stablished beyond the shadow of doubt that the assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence on its part. Sufficient cause as contemplated in the limitation provisions must be a cause which is beyond the control of the assessee. In the case on hand and on careful consideration of the factual matrix, it is clearly establishes that the delay was due to the latches and inaction on the part of the assessee, which could have been avoided by the assessee if it had exercised due care and attention and we agree with the contention of the ld DR that there were no compelling circumstances which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time and lack of internal processes cannot be a valid reason for condoning the delay and merely because the assessee is a public institution, it shouldn't expect any advantage over any other private entity. At the same time, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anil Kumar Nehru (supra) and in the interest of substantial Justice, we hereby condone the delay subject to cost of Rs 500/- for each of the sixteen appeals totaling to Rs 8,000/- to which the ld AR has agreed and submitted his acceptance on behalf ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....01 was brought in on the statue wherein the distinction between the cases where the statement has been filed and cases where the statement were not filed was removed and a common period of limitation of seven years from the end of the financial year, in which the payment is made or credit is given was provided. It was submitted that the said amendment is not from retrospective date, not does it specifically say that it is from retrospective effect. It was submitted that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2014 was expressly made prospective w.e.f. 01.10.2014 and therefore, the impugned order passed for financial year 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12 has been erroneously passed by the Assessing Officer beyond the limitation period so provided under section 201(3)(i) of the Act. In support, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High court in case of Tata Teleservice v/s Union Of India and Anr (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj). Further, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Pune Benches of the Tribunal in case of Bank of India v/s ITO, TDS, Kolhapur (ITA No. 119/Pune/2019 & others dated 25.07.2019) wherein the order passed by the Assessing Officer was held as ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NGPB02828A besa, Branch 2010-11 15.07.2010 06.12.2010 15.01.2011 14.05.2011 21-Mar-18 NGPB01586E Dharampeth, Branch 2010-11 05.08.2010 28.10.2010 15.01.2011 19.04.2011 27-Mar- 18 NGPB01825F Mowar, Branch 2010-11 15.07.2010 15.10.2010 15.01.2011 18.04.2011 21-Mar- 18 NGPB01638A Nagpurmain, Branch 2010-11 03.02.2011 03.02.2011 03.02.2011 18.05.2011 21-Mar- 18 NGPB01673A Takalghat, Branch 2010-11 15.7.2010 14.10.2010 15.1.2011 14.5.2011 21-Mar- 18 NGPB02965E Dongargaon, Branch 2009-10 - - - 15.6.2010 27-Mar- 17 11. It was submitted that in all these cases, the assessee has filed the TDS quarterly statement pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 and in all these cases, the limitation period expires on 31.03.2013 for A.Y. 2010-11 and on 31.03.2014 for A.Y. 2011-12, whereas the orders u/s 201(1)/(1A) have been passed by the Assessing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1961 within the prescribed time limitation. In this connection, it is stated that these above mentioned orders have been passed within prescribed time limitation given u/s 201(3) of the Act, 1961, which is produced as below: " No order shall be made under sub-section (1) deeming a person to be an assessee in default for failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax from a person resident in India, at any time after expiry of seven years from the end of the financial year in which payment is made or credit is given or two years from the end of the financial year in which the correction statement is delivered under the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 200, whichever is later." 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue under consideration relates to the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2014 to section 201(3) of the Act and where the said amendment has to be read prospectively or from a retrospective date. In this regard, Hon'ble Gujarat High court in case of Tata Teleservice v/s Union of India and Anr (supra) had an occasion to examine the said matter and the following question came up for its kind con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../or for the aforesaid financial years, limitation under section 201(3)(i) of the Act had already expired on 31/3/2011 and 31/3/2012, respectively, much prior to the amendment in section 201 as amended by Finance Act, 2014 and therefore, as such a right has been accrued in favour of the assessee and considering the fact that wherever legislature wanted to give retrospective effect so specifically provided while amending section 201(3) (ii) of the Act as was amended by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1/4/2010, it is to be held that section 201(3), as amended by Finance Act No.2 of 2014 shall not be applicable retrospectively and therefore, no order under section 201(i) of the Act can be passed for which limitation had already expired prior to amended section 201(3) as amended by Finance Act No.2 of 2014. Under the circumstances, the impugned notices / summonses cannot be sustained and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside and writ of prohibition, as prayed for, deserves to be granted." 16. The Pune Benches of the Tribunal in case of assessee's own case though pertaining to other branches had an occasion to examine similar issue and the relevant findings rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (supra), the assessee filed the TDS statements for the assessment year 2009-10 (ITANo.121, 125 & 127/PUN/2019) for all the 4 quarters and the date of filing for the last quarter is 20.04.2009 (ITANo.121/PUN/2019), 16.04.2009 (ITANo.125/PUN/2019) and 26.07.2011 (ITANo.127/PUN/2019) respectively. Thus, all these 3 appeals, considering the date of filing of the statements of TDS for 4 quarter of the year, the financial year involved is F.Y. 2009-10 & 2011-12. In that case, the due date for passing of order under sub-section (3)(i) of section 201 of the Act is 2 years from the end of the financial year 2009-10 or 2011-12, as the case may be. Thus, the Assessing Officer had time to pass an order for such appeals till 31st March, 2012 and 31st March, 2014, as the case may be. 21. Whereas in these 3 appeals, the Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 201(3)(i) of the Act only 30th March, 2016, 29th March, 2016 and 29th March, 2016 for the appeals in ITANos.121, 125 & 127/PUN/2019 respectively. From this point of interpretation of the Statute, we are of the opinion, the order passed by the Assessing Officer in these 3 appeals are without valid jurisdiction. The orders stand barre....