| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0338 (Bang-Trib) : (2020) 203 TTJ 0385 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 254
Demand mentioned in Default Summary was correct and further the demand raised under section 234E was machine computed demand, no useful purpose would be served in insisting upon the copies of intimations, since the said intimations also would show the very same demand raised under section 234E. CIT(A) should have proceeded to dispose of the appeals by taking cognizance of the default summary furnished by the assessee along with the return of income. Accordingly delay was condoned.
|
Appeal (Tribunal) - Condonation of delay - Demand raised under section 200A - Demand raised by way of fee under section 234E for belated filing of Statement of TDS
Assessee filed this appeal against the orders passed by CIT(A) raising demand under section 200A for various quarters falling in financial years relevant to the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. All these appeals were barred by limitation by 33 days. Assessee had filed a petition pleading the bench to condone the delay. It was stated in the petition that appeal papers were prepared initially for assessment year wise. Later, it came to the knowledge of assessee that separate appeal was required to be filed for each of the quarter for which CIT(A) had passed the order. Hence it took some time in transmission and re-transmission of documents causing delay of 33 days in filing these appeals. Held: When demand mentioned in the Default Summary is correct and further the demand raised under section 234E was machine computed demand, no useful purpose would be served in insisting upon the copies of intimations, since said intimations also would show the very same demand raised under section 234E. CIT(A) should have proceeded to dispose of the appeals by taking cognizance of the default summary furnished by assessee along with the return of income. Accordingly, assessee was directed to download copies of intimations and if it was not able to download so, it might sought the assistance of concerned authorities for downloading the intimations and after the copies of intimations were downloaded, they might be filed with CIT(A). Thus delay was condoned that occurred between the date of intimation under section 200A and the date of downloading of “Default Summaryâ€.
REFERRED : Genpact India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT & Anr. (2019) (419 ITR 440) (SC) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 7757 (SC) Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. v. UOI & Ors. (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 252 (Karn) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4175 (Karn-HC) National Products v. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 935 (Kar) : 1977 TaxPub(DT) 0493 (Karn-HC)
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|