I.T.A. Nos.1742 to 1745/Mum/2017 & S A Nos.240 to 243/Mum/2017 arising out I.T.A. Nos.1742 to 1745/Mum/2017. Case: Canara Bank Vs Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) 1(1). ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Case NumberI.T.A. Nos.1742 to 1745/Mum/2017 & S A Nos.240 to 243/Mum/2017 arising out I.T.A. Nos.1742 to 1745/Mum/2017
CounselFor Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Adv. and For Respondents: Shri Saurabh Deshpande, Adv.
JudgesShri Mahavir Singh, JM and Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM
IssueDirect Tax
Judgement DateMay 12, 2017
CourtITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)


Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM, (ITAT Mumbai C Bench)

  1. The assessee has filed four SA bearing S.A. Nos.240 to 243/Mum/2017 arising out these four appeals from Assessment year 2009-10 to 2012-13 seeking stay of demand raised by the ITO TDS vide orders passed for these four years u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. The assessee has also filed four appeals directed against the orders dated 22.1.2015 and 14.5.2015 passed by the ld.CIT(A) for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. The first appellate authority has dismissed the four appeals on technical grounds without going into the merits of and we are deciding these appeals first before taking up the SAs

  2. We find from the appeal record that there is a delay of 718 days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal. On the query from the Bench, the ld.AR submitted that the Bank''s main office was in the process of shifting from Cuffe Parade, Mumbai to Bandra -- Kurla -- Complex. The record of the Bank contains huge data files related to more than 25 different departments. The shifting process took 19 months and hence, the record relating to these appeals were not traceable. The ld.AR also submitted that the concerned Manager was also retired in the month of May, 2016. Thereafter the Bank took advice from the professional experts and filed appeals before this Tribunal. The ld. AR submitted that in the process, a delay of 718 is caused which is not intentional and motivated. The ld. AR also submitted that the issue is also settled by CBDT vide circular No.35 of 2016 dated 13th Oct, 2016. The ld. AR in support of his contentions has filed affidavit duly sworn by Mahesh Jagannath Kholgade, Employee of the Bank. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee has very good case on merits and there is every chance to succeed on merits. Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the delay should be condoned and appeals be admitted for adjudication. On the contrary, the ld.DR strongly objected to the application for condonation of delay.

  3. After hearing both parties on the delay, we are satisfied by the submissions rendered by the ld.AR and affidavits placed by the ld.AR in support of his contentions. In our considered view the reasons attributed for delay in filing appeals are reasonable and the delay deserved to be condoned. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication.

    I.T.A. Nos.1742 to 1745/Mum/2017

  4. Brief facts of the case are that on the information...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT