Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, JODHPUR
Before: SHRI N.K. SAINI & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
PER BENCH :
These appeals by the Assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 27/06/2019 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Udaipur.
Since the issue involved is common in all these appeals which were heard together so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
We shall deal with appeal in ITA No. 306/Jodh/2019 for the A.Y. 2013-14 wherein Assessee has raised the following grounds:
Ld. CIT"A" wrongly confirmed of levy of late fee Rs. 25500/- under section 234E by the Ld. DCIT CPC. The levy of late fee u/s 234E is without following provisions of law. Hence the confirmation of levy of late fee is bad in law and be deleted. 2. Ld. CIT "A" has wrongly refused to condone the delay in filing of appeal, as the delay in filing of appeal is on account of reasons beyond the control of appellant.
Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer charged late filing fee under section 234E r.w.s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), since there was delay in filing the TDS statements.
Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal in limine for the reason that there was delay in filing the appeals. Contention of the assessee for explaining the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) was as under:
“1. It is respectfully submitted that as per original intimation dated , there is delay in filing of appeal, which is beyond control of appellant company.
It is further respectfully submitted that Shree Dilip Shrimali was director of the company since 2009-10 and looking after all affairs very efficiently and suddenly expired at the age of 48 years due to cardiac problems. 3. In support of our contention we are submitting copy of death certificate of Shree Dilip Shrimali, Copy of Form DIR 12 submitted with MCA regarding his death and affidavit of present director confirming all these facts.
It is respectfully submitted that delay in filing of appeal was on account of reasons beyond control and on account of bonafide genuine reasons.
It is respectfully submitted that filing of appeal is substantial right and time limit for filing of appeal is procedural and law provided ample power to your goodself to consider each case of delay on merit and condone the delay in the interest of justice."
5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) however did not find merit in the submissions of the Assessee and dismissed the appeal in limine by observing as under:
I have gone through the documents enclosed with the application for condonation of delay. Death certificate of Sh. Dilip Shrimali shows his date of death as 14.05.2018. As such, even as on 14.05.2018, there was already extraordinary delay ranging from 27 months to 55 months, i.e delay ranging from more than two years to nearly four and a half years, in filing of the appeals under consideration. Thus, the event of demise of Sh. Dilip Shrimali, though tragic, does not in fact explain the extraordinary delay in filing of the
present appeals.
6.1 Sub Secton (3) of Section 249 does allow the admission of appeals filed with delay if the CIT(A) is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within time However, as discussed in the preceding Para, the assessee has failed to show sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay in filing of the appeals under consideration Application for condonation of delay is accordingly rejected in all cases. Accordingly, all the eighteen appeals under consideration are dismissed as not maintainable.
Now the assessee is in appeal.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that Late Shri Dilip Shrimali the then Director of the Company was responsible for filing the appeals and he was looking after all the taxation matters but unfortunately he suffered from Dengue and ultimately expired. It was stated that all these facts were brought to the knowledge of the Ld. CIT(A) and applications were moved for condonation of delay, however those were not considered by the Ld. CIT(A) in right perspective. It was submitted that the delay in filing the appeals was beyond the control of the assessee and there was no malafide intention in filing the appeals belated.
In his rival submissions the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that there was inordinate delay in filing the appeals therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not admitting the appeals being belated.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material on record. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the then Director who was looking after the affairs of the assessee company expired untimely and this fact that he was earlier suffering from Dengue was not brought to the knowledge of the Ld. CIT(A) which was first time contended before this Bench of the Tribunal. We therefore deem it appropriate to set aside
this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)to be decided afresh in accordance with law after considering the explanation of the assessee for delay in filing the appeals in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/11/2019 )
Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (N.K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated : 25/11/2019 AG Copy to: 1.The Appellant, 2. The Respondent, 3. The CIT(A), 4. The CIT, 5. The DR