Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, JABALPUR
O R D E R
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:
The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC)Delhi/CIT(A) passed u/sec 200A(1) and U/sec250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.
1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the Case; the learned CIT(A)-NFAC is not justified to not give any notice or proper opportunity and not to notify to the Appellant any such anomaly in filing of Appeal as well as to explain the reason for Office of District and Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. - 2 - delay in filing of the Appeal and as such the order so passed suffers the legal deformity of being contrary to the settled procedure in respect of such appeals and as such the order so passed is liable to be vitiated.
2) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, even of the technical flaws are considered as the points for not allowing the appeal; there is no justification either in law or facts to upheld the levy of late fee by way of processing of the quarterly Statements of TDS u/s 200A; which have been held by the Hob'ble ITAT in various judgments; to be beyond the jurisdiction of the CPC-TDS or any other competent authority and as such the order passed; to levy the late fee by way or processing the statement u/s 200A of the Act; itself is not maintainable as being ultra virus to the law and therefore despite the Appeal is treated as suffering from certain technical and technical flaws, the orders subjected to the appeal still not maintainable and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified to not allow the appeal and upheld to impugned orders levying the late fees.
3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is not justification to process the Quarterly TDS returns u/s 200A and to levy the Late fee and therefore the levy of late fee aggregating to Rs. 1,54,200/- for all four quarters is not lawfall and liable to be deleted.
4) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal
The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Government entity and has deducted TDS on salaries and other payments. The assessee for the F.Y 2013-14 in respect of Quarter (Q) 1, 2, 3 & 4 has filed the TDS Office of District and Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. - 3 - statements/returns with a delay. Whereas the CPC has processed the TDS returns/statements and levied Late Fees u/sec 234E of the Act for Q-1 Rs. 24,000, Q-2 Rs. 45,800/- Q-3 Rs. 45,800/- and Q-4 Rs.36,800/- all four Quarters aggregating to Rs.1,52,400/- and passed the separate orders u/s 200A of the Act dated 18-11-2014.The assessee has also filed rectification petition U/sec154 of the Act.
Aggrieved by the orders U/sec200A of the Act, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) found that the assessee has filed one appeal for all the four quarters and there is a delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) considering the facts on record find that the assessee has received the orders u/s 200A of the Act for all the four Quarters in November 2014. Whereas the appeal was filed combining all the four Quarters on 10.02.2017 and there is a delay of more than 800 days in filing the appeal. Whereas the CIT(A) has issued notices of hearing and since there was no compliance/submissions by the assessee to notices on the delay. Therefore the CIT(A) considering the information on record has not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. Office of District and Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. - 4 -
At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in not considering the factual position that the assessee was pursuing the alternative remedy by filing the rectification petition U/sec154 of the Act and therefore the assessee could not file the appeal in time. And there is no wanton Act in filling the appeal with a delay. Further the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and substantiated with the factual paper book and judicial decisions and prayed for allowing the appeal. Per Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie, the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the facts that there is no appearance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the notices were issued. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal in-limine without condoning the delay in filling the appeal. The CIT(A) has issued the notices of hearing referred at Page 1 Para 1 of the order, but there was no response and thus the Ld.CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the assessee is not interested and reasonable cause for the delay is not explained. Whereas Office of District and Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. - 5 - the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the Levy of Interest U/sec234E of the Act and there could be various reasons for non appearance which cannot be overruled. Therefore, considering the principles of natural justice shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate with the condonation application for the delay. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to consider the application explaining the reasonable cause on the delay and to adjudicate afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act. And the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21.09.2023