SANKLECHA CONSTRUCTIONS,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CPC)-TDS, , GHAZIABAD

There is no appearance from the side of the assessee. It is observed that the assessee preferred the instant batch of appeals before the ld. CIT(A) which was time barred. In support of the condonation of delay, the assessee submitted reasons to the effect that “the tax consultant misguided the assessee. The consultant was of the view that levy of fee u/s.234E is rectifiable u/s.154. It was also noted by the CIT(A) that the tax consultant was not even a qualified accountant and is an expert on the complex issues.” The ld. CIT(A) incorporated the reasons vide the discussion given in Para No.6.7 of the impugned order, but did not consider them as sufficient for condonation of delay. He, therefore, dismissed the appeals as time barred.

Assailing the order of CIT(A), the assessee has approached the Tribunal vide the common grounds that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeals and confirming the levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act for the Quarters 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the relevant previous year.

We have heard the ld. DR through virtual hearing and gone through the relevant material on record. The relevant facts supporting the condonation of delay discussed in the impugned order, as reproduced above in part, have also been gone through, with which we are satisfied. We, therefore, condone the delay caused before the ld. CIT(A) in presenting the first appeals. The impugned order is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for disposing the appeals on merits as per law after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24th June, 2020.