D.S. HOTELS & INNS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-CPC, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5702/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 January 20225 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that technicalities should not impede justice and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The CIT(A) was also directed to expedite the pending rectification application.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding the addition of Rs. 9,000/- as fees under Section 234E for delayed filing of a TDS statement. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to delay without condoning it, despite the assessee citing a change in consultant as the reason.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to delay without condoning it, and whether the fee under Section 234E was leviable for the relevant period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200A,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Respondent: Shri Yagyasaini Kakkar, CIT-DR
Hearing: 24.01.2022Pronounced: 24.01.2022

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) - 41, New Delhi dated 30.04.2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16.

2.

The grievances of the assessee read as under:

“1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, New Delhi has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.9,000/- being fees u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act,1961 in respect of delay in filling of Quarter-4 TDS statement in form 26Q. That the sub clause (c) was inserted under subsection (1) of the section 200A of the Act for charging fee u/s 234E of the Act by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f 01.06.2015 i.e. the returns filed from the Financial Period 2015-16.

2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while upholding the levy of fees u/s 234E, had dismissed the appeal by rejecting the condonation request of the appellant Company.

3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had not even considered that the delay in filling the appeal was due to change of Consultant of the appellant Company from Bhudladia & Co to Anil Khatri & Co.

4.

That the appellant had also filed rectification application u/s 154 for rectifying the demand created u/s 234E, which is still pending with the department. That further in view of no action on the rectification application, the appellant filed an appeal alongwith condonation of delay.

5.

That the fact is that the same learned CIT(A) -41 in the case of appellant company in the similar cases for FY 13-14 & FY 14-15 wherein has deleted the fees charged u/s 234 vide his order dated 16.11.2018.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and we decided to proceed exparte.

4. A perusal of the order of the first appellate authority shows that the ld. CIT(A), without condoning the delay, dismissed the appeal in limine.

5. In our considered opinion, technicalities should not come in the way of imparting justice. Moreso, when the assessee has given plausible reason for delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal on merits of the case.

6.

We also find that some rectification filed u/s 154 is pending. The ld. CIT(A) is also directed to expedite the matter in disposing the rectification appeal.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 24.01.2022.

More judgments on Section 234E

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →