SURYAKANNAN,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX,TDS WARD-3(1), CHENNAI

At the outset, we find that appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 2 days. Since, delay in filing of appeal is mainly due to lockdown imposed by the Govt. on account of spread of Covid-19, delay in filing appeal by the assessee is condoned in the interest of advancement of substantial justice, after hearing the learned DR and hence, appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication.

Brief facts of the case are that for the relevant assessment year 2014-15 [ Financial Year 2013-14 (26Q – Q1 Q2, Q3 & Q4,) ] the assessee has filed TDS Quarterly returns in Form 24Q beyond due date specified under the Act. The Assessing Officer has assessed TDS quarterly returns filed by the assessee under section 200A and levied late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for the delay in filing the said statements for all the assessment year. The assessee has challenged the levy of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act before the learned CIT(A), but such appeals have been filed beyond due date specified under the Act. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay along with reasons before the CIT(A) and requested to condone the delay of 1399 days in filing appeal to advance substantial justice on the ground that the issues involved on merits regarding levy of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act is now covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions, as per which there is no provision under the Act to levy late filing fee before amendment to section 200A by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f 01.06.2015. The learned CIT(A) dismissed appeals filed by the assessee as not admitted on the ground that the reasons for the delay in filing of appeals cannot be stated to be ‘beyond the control of the assessee’ and accordingly, rejected plea of the assessee for condoning delay in filing the appeals. While doing so, the CIT(A) relied on various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts, including decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of P.S.Rajeswari Vs. ACIT (2015) 373 ITR 464(Mad). Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee, despite notice. Since, the issue involved in the appeal is squarely covered, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits, after hearing the learned DR, and considering materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee without condoning the delay in filing appeals, even though the assessee has explained the reasons for delay in filing such appeals. According to the assessee, the assessee had filed appeals beyond due date for the reason that when the Department start levying late fee under section 234E, there was an ambiguity and no clear directions regarding levy