Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, ... vs Ito (Tds), Mandi on 16 June, 2022
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ,च डीगढ़ I N T H E I NC OM E T A X A P PEL L A TE T RI B U N AL D I V I S I O N BE NC H , " A" , CH A ND I G A R H BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 105 to 107/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB-Ranital, Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 108/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year :2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB-Ranital, Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 109/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB-Chadiar The. Mandi Baijnath, Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 110 & 111/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB-Chadiar The. Mandi Baijnath, Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 2 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 112 & 113/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year s: 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 & 2014-15 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Mahri Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 114, 115 & 116/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Ro Hamirpur Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 117 to 120/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Ro Hamirpur Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 121 & 122/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Badukhar Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 3 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 123/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Badukhar Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 124 to 126 /C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Sarkaghat Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 127/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Sarkaghat Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 128 & 129 /C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year s: 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 & 2014-15 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB - Harchakian Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 4 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 130 & 131/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Sajaopiploo, Sarkaghat, Mandi Mandi Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 132 & 133/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Sajaopiploo, Sarkaghat, Mandi Mandi Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 134 & 135/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Leda Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 136 & 137/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Leda Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 5 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 138 to 140/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB Thunag Mandi Mandi Branch;
थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 141 & 142/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB Thunag Mandi Mandi Branch; थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 143 to 145/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB Jalgkang (Jalag) Mandi Jaisinghpur Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 146 to 148/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB Jalgkang (Jalag) Mandi Jaisinghpur Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 6 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 149/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Arsu, Mandi Kullu Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 150 to 154 /C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB - Baijnath Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 155 to 156/C H D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB - Baijnath Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 157 & 158 /CHD/2022 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Sulyali Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 7 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 159 to 160/CH D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB - Pirsaluhi Dehra Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 161/CH D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB - Pirsaluhi Dehra Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 162 to 164/CH D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Mahadev, Mandi Sundernagar Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 165 & 166/CH D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Mahadev, Mandi Sundernagar Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 8 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 167 to 169/CH D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB - Chouin Baijnath (Chobin) Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 170/CH D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB - Chouin Baijnath (Chobin) Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 171 & 172/CH D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB - Rey Fatehpur, Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 173/CH D / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB - Rey Fatehpur, Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 9 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 174 /CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Years : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB - Chorthala The, Mandi Sarkaghat, Dist. Mandi Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 175 & 176 /CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), (Pounta) Paunja Mandi, Mandi Sarkaghat Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 177 /CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), (Pounta_ Paunja Mandi, Mandi Sarkaghat Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 178 to 180/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB - Alampur Mandi Jaisinghpur Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 10 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 181/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB - Alampur Mandi Jaisinghpur Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 182 to 184/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB - Dari, Dharamshala Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 185 to 187/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB - Dari, Dharamshala Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 188 & 189/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 & 2014-15 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Nither, Mandi Kullu Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 11 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 190/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 5 - 1 6 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Nither, Mandi Kullu Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 191 & 192/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Nurpur Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 193 to 195/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Nurpur Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 196 & 197/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Bhutti, Mandi Kullu Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 12 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 198/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Bhutti, Mandi Kullu Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 199 & 200/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Kanaid, Sundernagar Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 201/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB - Bharoli Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 202 & 203/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB - Bharoli Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 13 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 204/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB - Charri, Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 205 to 207/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Kotli, Mandi Mandi Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 208 & 209/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Kotli, Mandi Mandi Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 210 & 211/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Dharampur, Mandi Mandi Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 14 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 212/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Dharampur, Mandi Mandi Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 213/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Randhara, Mandi Mandi Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 214 & 215/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Randhara, Mandi Mandi Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 216/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HPGB-Kangra Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 15 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 217 & 218/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HPGB-Kangra Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 219 to 221/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HPGB-Kasba Kotla Jaswan, Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 222/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HPGB-Kasba Kotla Jaswan, Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 223 to 225/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Dalash Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 16 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 226/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Dalash Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 227 to 228/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Seri, Mandi Mandi Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 229/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Seri, Mandi Mandi Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 230/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Bagsaid Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 17 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 231 & 232/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB-Bhuana, Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 233/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB-Bhuana, Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 234 & 235/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Years : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 & 2014-15 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Talyahar Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 236 & 237/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Bhoranj, Mandi Kangra, Hamirpur Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 18 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 238/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Bhoranj, Mandi Kangra, Hamirpur Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 239/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Head Office Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 240 & 241/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Gagal, Mandi Mandi Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 242/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Gagal, Mandi Mandi Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 19 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 243 & 244/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB-Una Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 245 & 246/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Nalagarh Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 247/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Nalagarh Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 248 & 249/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB-BO Baroh Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 20 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 250/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB-BO Baroh Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 251 to 253/CHD / 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB-Bathutipri Jaswan, Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 254 & 255/CHD/ 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), HGB-Bathutipri Jaswan, Mandi Kangra Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 256 & 257/CHD/ 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Barot, Mandi Jagindernagar Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 21 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 258 & 259/CHD/ 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Chowai Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 260/CHD/ 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Chowai Branch Mandi थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 261 & 262/CHD/ 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Tihra, Mandi Mandi Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 263 & 264/CHD/ 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Tihra, Mandi Mandi Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 22 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 265 to 267/CHD/ 2 0 2 2 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 5 - 1 6 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, बनाम The ITO (TDS), Tihra, Mandi Mandi Branch थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALH0469C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pratik Sadrani, CA राज व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR सुनवाई क तार$ख/Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 उदघोषणा क तार$ख/Date of Pronouncement : 16. 06.2022 आदे श/Order PER BENCH:
These bunch of appeals have been preferred by the captioned Assessees against the respective orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi as per the details given below:-
ITA Nos. Appeal by CIT(A) / NFAC
order dated
105/Chd/ 2022 Assessee 28.09.2021
to
235/Chd/2022
Assessee 11.10.2021
236/Chd/2022
237/Chd/ 2022 Assessee 28.09.2021
to
267/Chd/2022
1.1 Since common issues were involved in these bunch of appeals, they were heard together and are now being disposed off through this common order for the sake of convenience.
ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 23 1.2 At the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that ITA No. 105/Chd/2022 may be taken as the lead case in this bunch of appeals.
1.3 The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) had no objection to this submission of the Ld. AR. Accordingly, ITA No.105/Chd/2022 is being taken as a lead case in this bunch of appeals.
2.0 The Ld. AR submitted that these bunch of appeals pertain to various branches of Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, a Regional Rural Bank. It was submitted that the various branches under the captioned appeals had filed their statements of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) and there was a delay of filing of the TDS returns. It was submitted that in all the appeals, the TDS returns pertained to a period prior to 1st June, 2015 and, subsequently, TDS-CPC had processed the returns and issued intimations levying a late filing fee u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). It was submitted that earlier the assessee branches had moved applications u/s 154 of the Act requesting rectification of orders passed u/s 200A of the Act imposing the late fee but these applications were rejected and then, subsequently, the assessee had approached the Ld. First Appellate Authority and had challenged the levy of late fee but the appeals of the assessee came to be dismissed and now the assessee has approached this Tribunal and is challenging the imposition of late fee.
ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 24 3.0 At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that in all the appeals there was a delay of 93 days in filling the appeal before the ITAT. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the Delay Condonation Application filed in this regard in ITA No. 105/Chd/2022 and submitted that the branches of Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank (HPGB) are situated in remote areas of Himachal Pradesh and initially the compliance with respect to the TDS was being done individually branch-wise and on many occasions there was difficulty in downloading the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dismissing the assessee's appeal. It was further submitted that since the appeals before the ITAT had to be filed at the Head Office level, the relevant information to reach from the remotest of branches was also difficult at times and the required information and documents would reach the Head office only after considerable delay which resulted in the Head office being unable to compile and consolidate all the appeals to be filed before this Tribunal within the prescribed time limit which resulted in the late filings of the appeals before the ITAT. The Ld. AR submitted that there was no intentional delay on the part of the assessee in this regard and the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee-Branches as well as the Head office. The Ld. AR submitted that these Branches being part of a Regional Rural Bank (RRB) were also not equipped with the State of Art Communication Equipment like high-speed internet and computers etc. Thus, all these factors went into causing delay in late filing of the appeals. The Ld. AR prayed that in the interest of ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 25 substantial justice, the captioned appeals should be admitted to be heard on merits.
4.0 Per contra, the Ld. Sr.DR opposed the assessee's prayer for condonation of delay and submitted that the provisions of Income Tax law are the same for every one and just because the assessee did not have a suitable infrastructure to file the appeals in time, the same should not be condoned as the assessee should have been more alert and careful about its rights and duties vis-à-vis the various laws. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that condoning the delay on such flimsy grounds would set a bad precedent for other defaulters also.
5.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the contents of Applications for condonation of delay and it is our considered view that no assessee would be benefitted by intentionally delaying the filing of appeals and as per the explanation given by the assessee regarding the delay, we have no reason to doubt the bona fides of the assessee. In the interest of substantial justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to be heard on merits. We note that more often than not, the Higher Courts have been liberal in condoning the delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhivchandra Shankar More Vs. Balu Gangaram More & Ors. in Civil Apeal No. 4669 of 2019 [arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 28938 of 2014] order dated 7 t h May, 2019 on the condonation of delay, has held as under:-
ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 26 "15. It is a fairly well settled law that "sufficient cause" should be given liberal construction so as to advance sustainable justice when there is no inaction, no negligence nor want of bonafide could be imputable to the appellant. After referring to various judgments, in B. Madhuri, this Court held as under:-
"6. The expression "sufficient cause" used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serves the ends of justice. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications for condonation of delay but over the years courts have repeatedly observed that a liberal approach needs to be adopted in such matters so that substantive rights of the parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay."
16. Observing that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, this Court held as under:-
"11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts.
So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lea d to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 27 parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time." As pointed out earlier, an appeal under Section 96 CPC is a statutory right. Generally, delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned, in the interest of justice, where there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay."
5.1 Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, vide Judgement dated 03.09.1998, opined that a Court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate. The Court went on to opine that in every case of delay there can be lapse on the part of the litigants concerned but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and shut the door against him. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that if the explanation does not smackof mala fides or it is not put forth as a part of a dilatory strategy, the court should show utmost consideration to the suitor. It was further held that there is no presumption that the delay in approaching the court is always deliberate and the words "sufficient cause" u/s 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.
5.2 Therefore, taking a sympathetic view of the submissions of the assessee branches on the issue of condonation of delay and also respectfully applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated in the preceding paragraphs, we accept the explanation ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 28 of the assessee branches vis-à-vis the delay and we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in all the above captioned cases. The appeals are, accordingly, admitted for hearing.
6.0 Coming to the merits of the case, the Ld. AR submitted that the NFAC had dismissed these appeals on the ground that the appeals were time barred. He drew our attention to paragraph 7.4.9 of the NFAC order in ITA No. 105/Chd/2022, wherein, it has been stated by the NFAC that the appeal was to be preferred against the order u/s 200A dated 13.11.2013 wherein the late filing fee u/s 234E was levied, but the assessee had filed an appeal against order rejecting the application u/s 154 which was not maintainable. It was further submitted that in the impugned order no adjudication was done on the merits of the issue as the appeal has not been admitted for the reasons of being time barred i.e. with inordinate delay, which had not been condoned. The Ld. AR submitted that this observation of the NFAC was factually incorrect because the assessee had preferred appeal against the intimation passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was received by the assessee on 02.04.2021 and, thereafter, the appeal had been filed before the NFAC on 16.04.2021 which was even apparent from the paragraph 1 of the order of the NFAC. It was submitted that, the appeal before the NFAC had been filed within the prescribed period of 30 days and, thus, the NFAC had grossly mis-appreciated the facts by dismissing the appeal of the assessee as being not maintainable in view of the ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 29 alleged inordinate delay in filing the appeal before it.
6.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that there was a mistake apparent from the record which the assessee had sought to be rectified because the late filing fee u/s 234E had been levied on various assessees for the periods which were prior to 01.06.2015 which was in the very teeth of the various judicial pronouncements across the country wherein it had been held that no late fee was leviable u/s 234E for periods prior to 1st June, 2015. The Ld. AR drew our attention to a paper book containing numerous judicial precedents in favour of the assessee wherein it has been held that no levy u/s 234E of the Act can be imposed for late filing of TDS returns prior to 01.6.2015. The Ld. AR fairly accepted that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had ruled against the assessee on the issue but submitted that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. It was also submitted by the Ld. AR that there was no judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court on the issue. The Ld. AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC) and another judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township Pvt Ltd [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC) wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if there is a difference of opinion between different High Courts on an issue, one in favour of the assessee needs to be followed.
6.2 The Ld. AR further submitted that the amendment to section ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 30 200A(1)(c) r.w.s. 234E was brought into the Statute w.e.f. 01.06.2015 which stipulates charging of late fee compulsorily and it was submitted that the Hon'ble Courts have held that this amendment was prospective in nature and would not apply to late fee imposable prior to 01.6.2015.
The Ld. AR submitted that in the light of the settled judicial precedents, the appeals should be allowed.
7.0 Per Contra, the Ld. Sr. DR while referring to the order of the NFAC submitted that the NFAC had rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the assessees had not filed any appeals against the original order passed u/s 200A of the Act which had been passed way back in 2013 and since, later the assessees had realized the implications of levy of late fee almost after seven years, they chose to file rectification applications u/s 154 of the Act and, thereafter, sought to file appeals against the rejection of 154 applications and, thus, have tried to regularize the matter but without any sound basis and logical reasoning.
The Ld. Sr. DR, while supporting the order of the NFAC, vehemently argued that the NFAC had rightly dismissed the appeals of the assessee.
7.1 The Ld. Sr. DR also submitted that the assessees' applications u/s 154 of the Act were not maintainable because there was no mistake apparent from the record for which there is a provision for filing an application u/s 154 of the Act. The Ld. Sr. DR further submitted that the assessee has not demonstrated with cogent evidence that how the ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 31 original order passed u/s 200A of the Act was rectifiable in terms of section 154 of the Act. It was further argued that the assessee has not demonstrated before the NFAC how various case laws supported its case, therefore, the NFAC could not be said to have committed an error in dismissing the assessee's appeal. The Ld. AR also submitted that there were 383 appeals on the issue filed by the various Branches of the Bank and out of these 192 appeals were decided by the NFAC in the favour of the assessee and 28 appeals were still in the process of hearing while 163 appeals which were dismissed were now before the Tribunal.
The Ld. AR placed a copy of the order of the NFAC in the case of Chamba Branch of the Bank for assessment year 2015-16 and submitted that here the NFAC had accepted the assessee's appeal u/s 154 of the Act and had allowed the assessee's appeal by holding that no late fee was leviable u/s 234E of the Act. It was submitted that there were 191 similar orders and, thus, apparently there was a diversion in the view taken by the NFAC on the issue.
8.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. The facts are not in dispute. The essential question for us to consider is whether -
(1) NFAC has rightly rejected the assessees' appeals against intimation u/s 154 of the Act; and (2) If the same has not been rightly rejected, whether the NFAC was right in dismissing the assessees' appeals without considering the merits of the case.
8.1 The assessee has filed a Chart depicting the amount of late fee ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 32 levied in respect of each assessee was well as reflecting the financial year to which the amount of levy u/s 234E pertains. For a ready reference, this chart is being reproduced herein under:-
ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 33 ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 34 ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 35 ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 36 ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 37 ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 38 8.2 A perusal of the above chart establishes beyond doubt that all the impugned levies are for a period prior to 01.06.2015 and, therefore, all the cases undoubtedly pertain to a period prior to 01.06.2015 when the section 200A (1) (1c) of the Act was amended to make the levy of late fee compulsory for all defaults.
8.3 As far as the contention of the assessee that the NFAC was not correct in dismissing the assessees' appeals on the ground that the assessees had filed appeals against 154 intimations and not against the ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 39 original orders u/s 200A of the Act and, hence, were not maintainable is concerned, it is seen that this issue is squarely covered by the order of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital in ITA Nos. 651/Pun/2018 to 661/Pun/2018 wherein it has been held that the appeals filed by the assessees were to be considered within time since the period has to be reckoned from the date of order u/s 154 of the Act and not from the issue of intimation u/s 200A of the Act. A similar view was taken by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Pune in the case of Junagade Healthcare Pvt Ltd in ITA Nos. 1016/Pun/2018 to 1028/Pun/2018. The relevant findings of the Pune Bench in the case of 'Junagade Healthcare Pvt Ltd (supra) are being reproduced herein under for reference:-
"18. Further before parting, we may also refer to the order of CIT (A) in the case of Junagade Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., where the CIT(A) had dismissed appeals of assessee being delayed for period of December, 2013 and July, 2014. The CIT(A) while computing delay had taken the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act as the basis, whereas the assessee had filed appeals before CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) had noted that rectification application was filed in February, 2018 which was rejected by CPC on the same day. The CIT(A) was of the view that there was no merit in condonation of delay, wherein appeals were filed beyond the period prescribed. The assessee had filed appeals against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, hence the time period of appeals filed by assessee before the CIT(A) have to be computed from the date of order passed under section 154 of the Act and not from the date of issue of intimation. Thus, there is no merit in the order of CIT (A) in dismissing the appeals of assessee on this issue. "
8.4 Therefore, in view of the above order of the ITAT Pune Bench, we ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 40 also hold that the NFAC had erred in dismissing the appeals of the assessees as being time-arred by taking the date of intimation u/s 200A of the Act as the basis for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal. The NFAC should have taken the date of intimation u/s 154 of the Act for the purpose of computing the limitation period.
Admittedly, and, undisputedly, the appeals before the NFAC were within time if we take the date of intimation u/s 154 of the Act.
Accordingly, in our considered view we find that NFAC was patently incorrect in out-rightly rejecting the assessees appeals by treating them as time barred by calculating the limitation period from the date of intimation u/s 200A of the Act, rather than by taking the date of intimation u/s 154 of the Act for the purpose of adjudication.
8.5 As far as the contention of the Department that there was no mistake apparent on the face of record which could be rectified u/s 154 of the Act by the AO, in our considered view, since the levy of late fee u/s 234E in the intimation u/s 200A was contrary to the settled law in numerous cases, the same was binding on the lower authorities as has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. H.C. Shrivastava reported in [2002] 256 ITR 385 (Mum.) wherein it was held that not following the binding decision is a mistake apparent from the record which should have been rectified by way of an order u/s 254 of the Act. Accordingly, we reject this contention of the Department and proceed to adjudicate the issues before us on merits.
ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 41 8.6 As far as the merits of the issue are concerned, it is seen that this issue is no longer res integra as there are hundreds of decisions from the coordinate Benches of the ITAT across the country wherein it has been held that the levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act prior to 01.06.2015 is not sustainable. In this regard, it will be worthwhile to refer to the order of the coordinate Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bathline India (Pvt.) Ltd, Delhi Vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad in ITA Nos.9336 to 9341/Del/2019 wherein vide order dated 31.08.2020, the coordinate Bench of the ITAT observed as under:-
"21. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find, the assessee, in the instant case has basically challenged the levy of late fee u/s 234E by the AO which has been upheld by the CIT(A) and who has also dismissed these appeals on account of delay in filing.
22. So far as the delay in filing of the appeals before the CIT(A) is concerned, a perusal of the Form No.35 filed along with copy of order passed u/s 154 by the CPC shows that the date of order u/s 200A was 11.11.2013 and the assessee filed the rectification application before the CPC and the order u/s 154 was passed on 11.02.2019. The assessee has filed the appeal against the order passed u/s 154 on 02.03.2019 which is well within the time. Even the ld.CIT(A) at para 4.2 of his order has also mentioned that the assessee has filed the appeal against the correction dated 11.02.2019. However, the ld.CIT(A), without considering the facts properly, has held that there is inordinate delay in filing of the appeals before him and the assessee failed to submit explanation so as to justify the above delay for which he dismissed the appeals on account of delay in filing these appeals. In our opinion, there is no delay in the instant case and all these confusion arose because of some typographical error in the Form 35 where the assessee, instead of mentioning section 154, mentioned section 200A against the section and subsection of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We, therefore, find ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 42 merit in the argument of the ld. Counsel that there is no delay in filing of the above appeals.
23. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Remfry and Sons (supra) has held that procedural/technical mistakes could not stand in the way of imparting justice and the authority must allow opportunity to the assessee to rectify mistakes. Since, in the instant case, there was merely a technical mistake in wrong mentioning of the provision, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that this technical mistake should not stand in the way of imparting justice and, therefore, the order of the CIT(A) holding that there is delay in filing of these appeals is not correct. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee has filed the appeals well in time and there is no delay. The order of the CIT(A) on this issue is accordingly dismissed.
24. A perusal of the order of the CIT(A) shows that all these TDS statements were filed before 01.06.2015. Therefore, the question that has to be considered is as to whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of late fee u/s 234E for delay in filing of the TDS statements and interest u/s 220(2) of the IT Act, 1961. We find, identical issue had come up before the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Udit Jain (supra). The Tribunal, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi vs. UOI as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani vs. UOI reported in (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137, has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under:-
"9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which needs to be adjudicated in these appeals is the charging of late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act while issuing the intimation u/s 200A of the Act. The case of the assessee before us is that where the legislature has inserted clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act w.e.f 01.06.2015, then in respect of the TDS statements which were filed under the respective sections of the Act, for the period prior to 01.06.2015, no late filing fee could be charged u/s 234E of the Act, in the intimation issued u/s 200A of the Act. We find that the said issue has been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi & Others vs Union of India (supra), which proposition has been applied by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, DOBI BK vs DCIT (supra).
ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 43 The Tribunal had also taken note of the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Rajesh Kourani vs Union of India (supra) and applying the proposition that where there was difference of opinion between Hon'ble High Courts on a particular issue and in the absence of any decision rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court, then the decision in favour of the assessee needs to be followed as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vegetables Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192(SC). The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:-
11. "We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record.
The issue arising in the present bunch of appeals is against levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act while issuing intimation under section 200A of the Act, in the first bunch of appeals. The second bunch of appeals in the case of Junagade Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. is against order of Assessing Officer passed under section 154 of the Act rejecting rectification application moved by assessee against intimation issued levying late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act. The case of assessee before us is that the issue is squarely covered by various orders of Tribunal, wherein the issue has been decided in respect of levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act, in the absence of empowerment by the Act upon Assessing Officer to levy such fees while issuing intimation under section 200A of the Act. The Tribunal vide order dated 21.09.2016 with lead order in ITA Nos.560/PN/2016 & 561/PN/2016, 1018/PN/2016 to 1023/PN/2016 in Maharashtra Cricket Association Vs. DCIT (CPC)-TDS, Ghaziabad, relating to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 for the respective quarters deliberated upon the issue and held as under:-
"34. Accordingly, we hold that the amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act is procedural in nature and in view thereof, the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all these appeals does not stand and the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section 234E of the Act is not valid and the same is deleted. The intimation issued by the Assessing Officer was beyond the scope of adjustment ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 44 provided under section 200A of the Act and such adjustment could not stand in the eye of law."
12. The said proposition has been applied in the next bunch of appeals with lead order in Vidya Vardhani Education and Research Foundation in ITA Nos.1887 to 1893/PUN/2016 and others relating to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 vide order dated 13.01.2017 and also in Swami Vivekanand Vidyalaya Vs. DCIT(CPC)-TDS (supra) and Medical Superintendant Rural Hospital Vs. ACIT (CPC)-TDS in ITA Nos.2072 & 2073/PUN/2017, order dated 21.12.2017, which has been relied upon by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee.
13. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India (supra) had also laid down similar proposition that the amendment to section 200A of the Act w.e.f. 01.06.2015 has prospective effect and is not applicable for the period of respective assessment years prior to 01.06.2015. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court are in paras 21 and 22, which read as under:-
"21. However, if Section 234E providing for fee was brought on the state book, keeping in view the aforesaid purpose and the intention then, the other mechanism provided for computation of fee and failure for payment of fee under Section 200A which has been brought about with effect from 1.6.2015 cannot be said as only by way of a regulatory mode or a regulatory mechanism but it can rather be termed as conferring substantive power upon the authority. It is true that, a regulatory mechanism by insertion of any provision made in the statute book, may have a retroactive character but, whether such provision provides for a mere regulatory mechanism or confers substantive power upon the authority would also be a aspect which may be required to be considered before such provisions is held to be retroactive in nature. Further, when any provision is inserted for liability to pay any tax or the fee by way of compensatory in nature or fee independently simultaneously mode and the manner of its enforceability is also required to be considered and examined. Not only that, but, if the mode and the manner is ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 45 not expressly prescribed, the provisions may also be vulnerable. All such aspects will be required to be considered before one considers regulatory mechanism or provision for regulating the mode and the manner of recovery and its enforceability as retroactive. If at the time when the fee was provided under Section 234E, the Parliament also provided for its utility for giving privilege under Section 271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondent-Revenue that insertion of clause (c) to (f) under Section 200A(1) should be treated as retroactive in character and not prospective.
22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Under the circumstances, we find that substitution made by clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under Section 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest."
14. The Hon'ble High Court thus held that where the impugned notices given by Revenue Department under section 200A of the Act were for the period prior to 01.06.2015, then same were illegal and invalid. Vide para 27, it was further held that the impugned notices under section 200A of the Act were for ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 46 computation and intimation for payment of fees under section 234E of the Act as they relate for the period of tax deducted at source prior to 01.06.2015 were being set aside.
15. In other words, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka explained the position of charging of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act and the mechanism provided for computation of fees and failure for payment of fees under section 200A of the Act which was brought on Statute w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The said amendment was held to be prospective in nature and hence, notices issued under section 200A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act relating to the period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015 were not maintainable and were set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. In view of said proposition being laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka (supra), there is no merit in observations of CIT(A) that in the present case, where the returns of TDS were filed for each of the quarters after 1st day of June, 2015 and even the order charging late filing fees was passed after June, 2015, then the same are maintainable, since the amendment had come into effect. The CIT(A) has overlooked the fact that notices under section 200A of the Act were issued for computing and charging late filing fees under section 234E of the Act for the period of tax deducted prior to 1st day of June, 2015. The same cannot be charged by issue of notices after 1st day of June, 2015 even where the returns were filed belatedly by the deductor after 1st June, 2015, where it clearly related to the period prior to 01.06.2015.
16. We hold that the issue raised in the present bunch of appeals is identical to the issue raised before the Tribunal in different bunches of appeals and since the amendment to section 200A of the Act was prospective in nature, the Assessing Officer while processing TDS returns / statements for the period prior to 01.06.2015 was not empowered to charge late filing fees under section 234E of the Act, even in cases where such TDS returns were filed belatedly after June, 2015 and even in cases where the Assessing Officer processed the said TDS returns after June, 2015. Accordingly, we hold that intimation issued by Assessing ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 47 Officer under section 200A of the Act in all the appeals does not stand and the demand raised by charging late filing fees under section 234E of the Act is not valid and the same is deleted.
xxx
28. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed."
8.7 We also note that the coordinate Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh has also held an identical view in favour of the assessee in the case of M/s H.P. Agro Industries Corporation Ltd Vs. ACIT CPC-TDS in ITA No. 1072/Chd/2018 wherein vide order dated 05.07.2021, the coordinate Bench of ITAT Chandigarh, on identical set of facts and on identical reasoning has followed the order of the coordinate Bench of the ITAT Pune as well as of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi & Ors. Vs. Union of India (supra). Therefore, on an over all view of identical set of facts and also on the same reasoning as observed by the coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Bathline India (Pvt.) Ltd, Delhi Vs. ACIT CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad (supra) and ITAT Chandigarh in the case of M/s H.P. Agro Industries Corporation Ltd Vs. ACIT CPC-TDS, and respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. Vs. Union of India (supra), we allow all the appeals of the assessees and while setting aside the orders of the NFAC, we direct the AO to delete the levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. While doing so, we would also like to state that we have followed the judgement of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 48 Vs. Union of India (supra) after duly noting that although the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani Vs. UOI (supra) has held against the assessee on the issue, we draw support from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vegetable Products (supra) wherein it has been held that in case of diversity of opinion, the view favoring the assessee should be followed.
8.8 Before parting, we would also like to make a reference to the order of the NFAC dated 25.08.2021 which has been passed in the case of Chamba Branch of HPGB wherein the NFAC has accepted and allowed the assessee's appeal preferred against intimation u/s section 154 of the Act and has deleted the late fee levied u/s 234E of the Act by following the judgement of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors Vs. Union of India (supra). The Ld. AR has stated at the Bar that this order was part of 192 appeals in respect of the various Branches of HPGB on identical issue challenging the rejection of assessee's applications u/s 154 of the Act. Thus, apparently, the NFAC has taken divergent views on the same issue when rejecting 163 appeals of the HPGB and allowing 192 appeals. Thus, on this account also there is a contradiction and anomaly in the order of the NFAC and the assessee's submission that not considering the ratio of orders in favour of the assessee tantamounts to mistake apparent on the fact of the record assumes greater weightage.
ITA Nos. 105 to 267-Chd-2022 -
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Distt. Kangra & Others 49 9.0 In the final result, all the appeals of the assessees stand allowed.
Order pronounced on 16.06.2022.
Sd/- Sd/- ( N.K. SAINI) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) Vice President Judicial Member Dated : 16.06. 2022 "आर.के."
आदे शक त+ल,पअ-े,षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent
3. आयकरआय.
ु त/ CIT
4. आयकरआयु.त (अपील)/ The CIT(A)
5. ,वभागीय त न1ध, आयकरअपील$यआ1धकरण, च3डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH
6. गाडफाईल/ Guard File आदे शानस ु ार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar