AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....time. 2. In the facts & circumstances of the appeal the ld. CIT Appeals had erred in deciding that the extended period of limitation by the Honourable Supreme Court was expired from 90 days from 15.03.2021. 3. In the facts & circumstances of the appeal the ld. CIT Appeals was grossly negligent in not taking contingence of the further order of the Supreme Court for extension of limitation due to Covid-19. 4. In the facts & circumstances of the appeal the ld. CIT Appeals was erred in not deciding the case on merits at all. 5. We reserve our right to add, amend, alter, or drop any of the grounds of the appeal." 3. Brief fact of the case are that the assessee Birla Cement Works Staff Provident Fund is recognized provident fund, set up under the employees Provident Fund & miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952 approved by the regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The fund is doing all the activities which are required to be undertaken under the PF and other statutory act viz collect the contribution from employees & employer, manage the PF funds, maintain the records and accounts of employees, distribution the superannuation and pension and also make t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te is order u/s 200A of the Act, which is also attached as mandatory attachment. As per the order under section of the 200A attached as a mandatory attachments, the date of filing of regular statement for Quarter 1 of F.Y. 2019-20 is 26.11.2020 and the date of order passed is 30.11.2020. As per the normal practice of the Department, the order u/s 200A is generally served on the appellant by email on the same day. The appellant has also attached another document being Communication Ref No. 01072021/00185/CD on the subject of "Intimation of Outstanding Demand issued by the ITO, TDS, Bilwara, Rajasthan. On face of the Communication Ref No. 01072021/00185/CD, it appears that, the date of communication is 01.07.2021 and it appears that, the appellant has received the communication on 14.07.2021, which is mentioned in column No.2C of Form No 35 being the date of service of the demand notice instead of mentioning the date of service of order u/s 200A. 4.2 Further, the appellant has also attached a copy of CBDT's Circular No. 10/2021, vide F.No. 225/49/2021/ITA-II, dated 25.05.2021. The circular No. refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court / Suo Moto Writ petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e other than the evidence stated in row 12.1 above has been filed". In view of the facts narrated above, it is stated that, the appellant has filed false statement of verification under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The legislature has given such an importance to the Verification Column to the extent that even prosecution proceedings are envisaged as per the provisions of section 277 of the Act. 4.5 As stated above, the appellant has not filed the appeal within the prescribed time nor sought for condonation of delay in filing appeal in the Form No. 35 Moreover, the appellant has also furnished wrong information in Form No. 35 and hence has also filed a false verification under the Act. Further, even during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not sought for condonation of delay Therefore, the present appeal is held to be an invalid appeal and hence is not adjudicated upon 5. In the result, the appeal is treated as dismissed for statistical purposes." 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the above order of the ld. PCIT, the assessee has preferred the present appeal on the ground as stated hereinabove. In support of the grounds so raised the ld. AR appearing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts & circumstances of the appeal the Id. CIT Appeals has erred in deciding that the appeal was filled beyond permissible time. 2. In the facts & circumstances of the appeal the Id. CIT Appeals has erred in deciding that the extended period of limitation by the Honourable Supreme court was expired from 90 days from 15.03.2021. 3. In the facts & circumstances of the case the Id. CIT Appeals was grossly negligent in not taking cognizance of the further order of the supreme court for extension of limitation due to Covid-19. Our detailed representation on all the above three grounds is as under: The intimation dated 30.11.2020 was not received by the assessee and notice of due demand in this regard was received to assessee on 14-07-2021 from the jurisdiction assessing officer and being aggrieved with the order, assessee has filled appeal before CIT Appeals on 30.10.2021. Due to Covid period in March 2020, the honourable supreme court has taken suo moto cognizance of difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filling petitions/ applications /suits/ appeals / all other quasi proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... TDS has been duly filed in Form 24Q and filling of Form 26Q was only a corrective measure to rectify the technical mistake committed in form 24Q therefore it should not be considered as a new return for the purpose of imposing late fee. considering the fact that no loss is caused to the Revenue, the assessee cannot be saddled with levy of late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act, taking a judicious view of the matter We have relied upon following case law Our above contentions are also supported by following juridical pronouncements: 1. GB Builders-Vs-ACIT-ITAT-Ahmedabad In this matter it was held that- "Once the assessee has initially deposited TDS and furnished Statement in Form 26QB within time, but committed a technical error while depositing TDS resulting in non-grant of TDS to transferor, compelling it to again deposit TDS along with interest for late deposit, then, in the interests of justice and considering the fact that no loss is caused to the Revenue, the assessee cannot be saddled with levy of late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act. taking a judicious view of the matter. In result, we hold that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on merits by the ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed on record and gone through the judicial precedent cited by both the parties to drive home their respective contentions. The bench noted that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal of the assessed considering the fact that the appeal filed by the assessee was delayed whereas the same was not as per the contention of the assessee. The assessee on this issue has submitted as under: The intimation dated 30.11.2020 was not received by the assessee and notice of due demand in this regard was received to assessee on 14-07-2021 from the jurisdiction assessing officer and being aggrieved with the order, assessee has filled appeal before CIT Appeals on 30.10.2021. Due to Covid period in March 2020, the honourable supreme court has taken suo moto cognizance of difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filling petitions/ applications /suits/ appeals / all other quasi proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central and/or State) due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent account and filed TDS return in Form 24Q on or before the prescribed due dates under the law. The same is verifiable from the exact given here in below; Thus, it is clear that the assessee has paid tax on 07.05.2019, 07.06.2019 and 04.07.2019. Later on, when it was came to the knowledge to the assessee that the data of same deduction has to file in Form No. 26Q hence immediately trust made efforts to file correction statement. However, due to technically reason Traces has not allowed to make correction in Form 24Qand also not permitted to replace the data in Form No 26Q directly through correction statement. Therefore, assessee trust compelled to file return in another Form 26Q and the same Form was processed u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the Central processing Cell of TDS treated the same return as a new return. Accordingly, the Central processing Cell of TDS has imposed late fee of Rupees 96,800/- considering the delay of 484 days ignoring the facts of the case. The intimation of demand in this regard was received to assessee on 14.07.2021 from the jurisdiction assessing officer. Thus, it is evidently clear that there is no delay in payment of taxes but due to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f revised TDS Statement u/s 234E of the Act. In our considered view, the Ld. CIT(A) has not taken a judicious view of the matter while upholding levy of late filing fee of Rs. 74,600/- u/s. 234E of the Act in the particular facts of the case. The Ld. CIT(A) did not take into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, where the assessee had initially deposited TDS u/s 194-IA of the Act on purchase of immovable within due date on 24-11-2014. Due to a technical error, since the seller could not get credit of TDS deposited in the initial deposit, on the advise of Revenue Authorities, the assessee had again deposited TDS along-with late filing interest Rs. 46,977/- payable for 14 months on 16-12-2015. Ld. CIT(A) also did not appreciate that had the assessee at the time of initial deposit of TDS mentioned the correct PAN numbers i.e. had the assessee not committed the aforesaid technical error, there would have been no question of levy of interest u/s 234E of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also did not take cognizance of the fact that in the facts of the case, there was no loss caused to the Revenue. While, respectfully following the jurisdictional High Court in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e bench of the ITAT, Ahmedabad we respectfully following that finding direct the ld. AO to delete the levy of penalty of Rs. 96,800/- In terms of this observation the appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 183/Jodh/2023 stands allowed. 9. The fact of the case in ITA Nos. 184 and 185/Jodh/2023 is similar to the case in ITA No. 183/Jodh/2023 and we have heard both the parties and persuaded the materials available on record. The bench has noticed that the issues raised by the assessee in this appeal No. 184 and 185/Jodh/2023 is equally similar on set of facts and grounds. Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts and various grounds raised by both the parties. Hence, the bench feels that the decision taken by us in ITA No. 183/Jodh/2023 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of Birla Cement Works Provident Fund in ITA Nos. 184 and 185/Jodh/2023. In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 by placing the details on the notice board. ============= Document 1 TAN NO: JOHBO Assessment Year 2020-21 4. Details of tax deducted and paid to the credit of the Central ....