ALFA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

These cases were heard together. Since facts common and issues are similar, these cases are being disposed of vide this consolidated order.

At the very outset, we notice that some of the appeals are time barred by 38 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit along with condonation of delay petition. We have gone through the condonation petition as well as the affidavit and have found that reasons specified therein are justified and that the delay cannot be attributed to the deliberate conduct of the assessee neither through intention nor through action. The reasons for delay in filing the appeals late were beyond the control of the assessee and even the Ld. DR stated that he has no objection, if the delay is condoned. In view of the matter, we condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeals on merits.

In these set of appeals intimation had been issued by the Assessing Officer u/s.200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) wherein fees payable u/s.234E of the Act has been charged by the Assessing Officer.

The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted before us that in respect of all these cases, it may be noted that the Legislature had inserted Clause (c) to Section 200A(1) of the Act specifically w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and the case of the assessees before us is that in such circumstances where the said amendment was introduced w.e.f 01.06.2015 and there was nothing to suggest that the said amendment was clarificatory or retrospective in nature, then no such late fees could be charged u/s.234E of the Act in respect of TDS statements which were filed prior to 01.06.2015. It was further submitted by the Ld. AR of the assessee that in all these cases TDS statements were filed prior to 01.06.2015 and therefore, the Revenue Authorities could not have levied late fees u/s.234E of the Act.

Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that in these set of appeals, the respective Ld. CIT(Appeal)‟s had dismissed these appeals filed before them on the ground of substantial late filing of the appeals and without going into the merits of the cases. That further these appeals were time barred and the assessees could not establish the reasonableness for such substantial delay in filing of these appeals before the Ld. CIT(appeal)‟s. Therefore, the Ld. DR submitted that the matter may be restored back to the respective files of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)‟s for adjudication on merits.

We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. We have also given considerable thought to the facts and circumstances involved in all these cases. It is observed on perusal of Section 200 sub section (3) r.w.s. 206C sub-section (3) proviso that when the assessee has deducted TDS, he has to deposit the amount in the Government account and after doing that he has to furnish the TDS statement before the Income Tax Authorities within the prescribed time limit. If there is late filing of those TDS

We find that the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Nehru Vs. ACIT (2018) 103 CCH 0231 ISCC has held that even if there is substantial delay in filing of appeals it can be condoned on the ground that it involves a question of law which goes into the root of the matter. In these set of appeals before us, it pertains to a legal question whether late fees would be leviable on the assessee or not depending upon the merits involved in each case.

In the result, all these set of appeals of the different assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.