KAUSHAL ISHWAR GHANSHANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2059/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 September 2022AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly verified the sufficient cause for the delay before confirming the penalty. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause, and remitted the issue of penalty levy back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the levy of fee under Section 234E for late filing of TDS statements. The assessee claimed the delay was due to the accountant being unwell and subsequently passing away, and that they were unaware of the intimations sent via email.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing TDS statements and the appeal could be condoned due to the accountant's demise, and whether the penalty under Section 234E was leviable without proper verification of sufficient cause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLE

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Hearing: 28.09.2022Pronounced: 30.09.2022

O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (JM)

1.

These appeals are field by the assessee against different orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 21.06.2022 for the Assessment Year 2019-20 in sustaining the levy of fee u/s. 234E of the

2.

Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order.

3.

Assessee has raised following identical grounds in all these appeals. Grounds in ITA.No. 2057/Mum/2022 are reproduced below:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is bad in law. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals), erred in not accepting the contention of the appellant and confirming the fees levied u/s. 234 for late filing of TDS Return amounting to Rs. 75,151/ for Quarter 4. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, it is prayed that the fees levied u/s. 234 amounting to Rs. 75,151/- may please be deleted.

4. The appellant craves leave to add or alter or delete or amend any grounds of appeal.”

4.

In spite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Thus, we proceed to dispose off these appeals on merits on hearing the Ld.DR.

3 2058, 2059 & 2060/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2019-20) Kaushal Ishwar Ghanshani 5. Ld. DR brought to our notice the relevant facts on record and vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.

Considered the submissions of the Ld.DR and material placed on 6. record. We observe that penalties levied u/s. 234E of the Act are relating to Financial Year 2018-19, issues relating to four quarters of the same Financial Year in which assessee has filed the TDS regular statement belated. Accordingly, the penalties were levied by the Officer. However, we observe from the submissions of the assessee that assessee is not aware of the intimations u/s. 200A/200CB of the I.T. Act has been sent on email. Further, it was informed that the Accountant, Mr.Kamlesh Kotak, of the assessee at that point of time was unwell and subsequently passed away. It came to assessee knowledge only when ITO-TDS raised demand for various years. Accordingly, assessee filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with the condonation of delay for seeking relief.

7.

However, Ld.CIT(A) rejected the plea of the assessee and he rejected the condonation application and also observed that the assessee has not brought on record any sufficient cause neither for condonation of delay nor for the levy of penalty u/s. 234E of the Act. Therefore, he

4 2058, 2059 & 2060/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2019-20) Kaushal Ishwar Ghanshani dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on both the counts i.e. on delay condonation as well as merit of levying penalty u/s. 234E of the Act.

8.

After considering the facts on record, we observe that section 234E its starts with Non obstante clause i.e., without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within time prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the provision to sub-section (3) of section 206C. It clearly indicates that the tax authorities have to evaluate the reasons and verify sufficient cause for delay before levying the penalty. In the given case Ld.CIT(A) has not verified the sufficient cause for delay before confirming the penalty as well as he also not condoned the delay with the reasons brought on record by the assessee that the Accountant of the assessee who was unwell as well as subsequently passed away. This could be the reason for both filing the appeal with the delay as well as delay in filing the regular statement u/s. 200(C). Therefore, we are inclined to remit this issue back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to verify the sufficient cause before confirming the penalty u/s. 234E of the Act. With regard to condonation of delay, we observe that there is sufficient cause brought on record by the assessee in its submissions. Therefore, as far as the delay is concerned it is condoned for the sake of overall justice under the Act. Accordingly, all the appeals

9.

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 30th September, 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 →