SURESH PUKHRAJ JAIN,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], for A.Y. 2013-14, arising from the order dated 21.06.2013 passed under section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”).

The effective grounds raised by the assessee are that the learned CIT(A) erred in declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal and in not adjudicating on merits the levy of late-filing fee of ₹8,019 under section 234E of the Act for the period prior to 01.06.2015.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual carrying on the business of trading in licences under the proprietary concern, M/s Informatics. The quarterly TDS statement in Form No. 26Q for the second quarter of F.Y. 2012-13 was filed belatedly and, consequently, late-filing fee of ₹8,019 under section 234E was levied vide order dated 21.06.2013. The assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) only on 29.04.2025. After excluding the period covered by the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, there remained a delay of 3,558 days. The assessee explained that he was under the bona fide impression that the demand would be deleted automatically in view of subsequent judicial pronouncements and that he became aware of the subsisting demand only from the income-tax portal. The learned CIT(A), observing that the explanation was general in nature and unsupported by any documentary evidence, declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. No application seeking adjournment was filed. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal on the basis of the material available on record after hearing the learned Departmental Representative.

The learned Departmental Representative, with whose able assistance we have gone through the impugned order and the material placed on record, supported the findings of the learned CIT(A). He

We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the material placed before us. The appeal before the learned CIT(A) was filed after an inordinate delay of 3,558 days, even after granting the benefit of exclusion of the period directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The explanation that the assessee expected the demand to be deleted automatically on the basis of subsequent judicial pronouncements does not explain the prolonged inaction in pursuing the statutory remedy. No documentary evidence was furnished either before the learned CIT(A) or before us to establish any circumstance beyond the control of the assessee which prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. In the absence of sufficient cause explaining the long delay, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) declining to condone the delay. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.