Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2022-23, which was delayed by 140 days but condoned by the Tribunal. The assessee had initially appealed before the CIT(A) against a recovery demand notice for outstanding TDS/TCS of ₹6,47,350/-, instead of an order passed under Section 200A of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) had considered this appeal invalid.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concurred with the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the appeal was invalid. The appeal before the CIT(A) was filed against a recovery demand notice and not against a specific order passed under Section 200A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether an appeal filed before the CIT(A) against a recovery demand notice, instead of an order passed under Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, is valid, and consequently, whether the confirmation of penalty levied under Section 234E is justified.
Sections Cited
234E, 200A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha
Year: 2022-23 Ashok Agencies, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 70, 71, Chinna Thirupathi Main Road, TDS, Salem. Salem 636 008, Tamil Nadu. [PAN:AAFFA4962N] [TAN:CHEA08311C] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2022-23.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 140 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
The assessee raised 9 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in concluding the appellate order in confirming the penalty levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].
4. At the outset, we note that the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the recovery of outstanding TDS/TCS of ₹.6,47,350/- vide demand notice dated 15.06.2022 issued by the ITO, TDS, Salem. The ld. CIT(A) issued various notices dated 25.10.2022, 02.01.2024, 20.06.2024 & 18.07.2024 for furnishing TDS order. However, there was no response from the assessee. Since the assessee could not file TDS order passed under section 200A of the Act before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) held that the appeal filed by the assessee is not valid as it is against the recovery notice. The ld. AR fairly concedes that the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the recovery demand notice instead of order passed under section 200A of the Act, therefore, we agree with reasons recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in disposing of the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 5. Order pronounced on 29th May, 2025 at Chennai.