M/S. UGP ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1516/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 July 2026AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not been presented with all relevant facts regarding the delay, including the hospitalization of the assessee's Chartered Accountant. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration of the delay condonation application and the legal issue.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the levy of late fees under Section 234E for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The CIT(A) refused to condone the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's failure to provide valid reasons.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the AO had the authority to levy late fees retrospectively.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200A,Section 206CB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 13.05.2026Pronounced: 07.07.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: ITA No.1516/Chny/2026 is against action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Delhi dated 12.06.2026 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AY‘) 2014-15; and the ITA No.1517/Chny/2026 is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) dated

ITA Nos 1516 & 1517/Chny/2026(AY 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/s.UGP Engineering Pvt. Ltd. :: 2 :: 12.06.2026 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AY‘) 2015-16.

2.

At the outset, it is noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has refused to consider the legal issue/grounds of appeal preferred by assessee on merits by refusing to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before him. According to the Ld.CIT(A), the AO (CPC-TDS) Ghaziabad has levied the late fees u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act) u/s 200A/206CB of the Act in respect of the TDS submission vide in Form- 24Q (Q-1,2,3) and Form-26Q(Q-1,2,3) of AY 2015-16 vide order dated 14.05.2015 and 19.05.2025. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) noted that there is a huge delay in filing of the appeal before him since they have appealed against the action of the AO/CPC(TDS) dated 14 & 19 May-2015 only on 26.02.2025 (almost 10 years) and hence, he refused to condone the delay, even though the assessee pleaded before him that it (assessee) was under the bona-fide belief that the AO/CPS would suo- moto delete the late fee under 234E, since power to charge the same was vested in him only with effect from 01.06.2015 and hence cannot be applied retrospectively against the assessee company.

3.

The Ld.CIT(A) being not convinced, has rejected the plea to condone the delay and hence has not decided the grounds of appeal raised before him against the late fee levied against the assessee. The

ITA Nos 1516 & 1517/Chny/2026(AY 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/s.UGP Engineering Pvt. Ltd. :: 3 :: AO brought to our notice that the delay caused in filing of the appeal during the First Appellate Authority was not due to any deliberate action on the part of the assessee. According to AR, the assessee had entrusted the relevant documents to Chartered Accountant [CA] named Shri Omprakash Jain Membership No.207152, who unfortunately did not file the appeal and later the assessee came to know on enquiry that the said CA was hospitalized due to medical illness and had suffered heart attack which also contributed to the delay in filing/attending/pursuing the appellate proceedings within the prescribed time. We find that the aforesaid relevant facts have not been brought to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A) and hence he was not able to pass an informed decision. Therefore, for the ends of justice and fair play and also considering the legal issue raised by the assessee that AO didn’t had the power/authority to levy late fees, we set aside the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to consider the application for condoning the delay filed by the assessee afresh and thereafter to pass orders in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. The assessee is at liberty to file affidavit/relevant documents to substantiate the delay in filing of the appeal before the First Appellate Authority as well as the legal issue supra. Thereafter, the Ld.CIT(A) to pass orders in accordance with law after hearing the assessee.

ITA Nos 1516 & 1517/Chny/2026(AY 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/s.UGP Engineering Pvt. Ltd. :: 4 :: 4. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 07th day of July, 2026, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वक�) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (ABY T. VARKEY) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�ई/Chennai, िदनांक/Dated: 07th July, 2026. YS आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

Digitally signed YASHVI by YASHVIR SINGH R SINGH Date: 2026.07.10 12:54:32 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 234E

All 4,792 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234E →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →