S.MUTHUSAMY(HUF),NAMAKKAL vs. TDS, CPC, GHAZIABAD

PER G. MANJUNATHA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against

order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated

30.09.2021 and pertains to assessment year 2015-16.

Financial Year 2014-15 (26Q – 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 Act

2 ITA No.543/Chny/2021

for the delay in filing the said statements for all the

assessment years. The assessee has challenged the levy of

late filing fee under section 234E before the learned CIT(A),

but such appeal has 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 in filing appeals 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 the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that

the assessee failed to adduce any reasons which comes under

reasonable cause for condoning delay in filing appeal. The

learned CIT(A) further stated that unless the assessee

explains reasons for not filing appeal within time, the delay

cannot be condoned merely on the ground the issue is

covered in favour of the assessee. While doing so, he relied

upon various, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

3 ITA No.543/Chny/2021

Court in the case of J.B.Advani & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1969) 72

ITR 395. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is

in appeal before us.

Therefore, we proceed to dispose off the appeal after hearing

learned DR and perusing materials available on record along

with the order of learned CIT(A). We find that the learned

CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without

condoning the delay in filing appeal, even though the assessee

has explained the reasons for delay in filing such appeal.

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 of late filing fee under

section 234E of the Act for belated filing of TDS returns.

However, in the year 2018 various High Courts and Tribunals

have taken a clear stand and held that amendment made

under section 200A of the Act with effect from 01.06.2015 is

held to be having prospective in nature and hence, no late fee

can be charged u/s.234E of the Act, while processing TDS

4 ITA No.543/Chny/2021

returns filed prior to 01.06.2015. Based on subsequent

judgments of various Courts and Tribunals, the assessee felt

that appeal can be filed against intimation issued by the

Assessing Officer levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act. We

further noted that the assessee has given above explanation

before the CIT(A), however, the learned CIT(A) has not given

any reason to discard the reasons given by the assessee for

belated filing of appeals, but simply dismissed the appeal filed

by the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not

bring any material on record to establish that it had taken all

possible steps to file appeals within prescribed time or within

reasonable period. No doubt, it is duty of the assessee to file

appeal within due date. In case, the appeal is not filed within

due date prescribed under the Act, then it is for the assessee

to give sufficient reasons which prevented from filing of

appeal within due date, but the reasons given by the

assessee shall come within the expression ‘sufficient cause’.

Various Courts and Tribunals have explained the term

“sufficient cause”. As per the settled principle a case that

arguable /favorable points / contention on merits should not be

shut out on the presumption of limitation, leading to such a case

5 ITA No.543/Chny/2021

being thrown out at the threshold itself in limine. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs.MST Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) while laying down principles for considering matters of condonation of

delay in filing appeals have stated that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Dr.C.Fernandes Co-operative

Vs. DCIT(supra) held that sufficient cause ought to be interpreted in a manner which subserves and advances cause of substantial justice. In this case, on perusal of record, we find that the reasons given by the assessee for not filing the

appeal within the time allowed under the Act, comes under the expression “sufficient cause” and hence, we are of the considered view that learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning

the delay in filing appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide the issues

involved in the appeal on merits.

6 ITA No.543/Chny/2021

allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2022

Sd/- Sd/- (महावीर �संह) (जी. मंजुनाथ) (Mahavir Singh) (G. Manjunatha ) उपा�य�/ Vice-President लेखा सद"य / Accountant Member चे$नई/Chennai, %दनांक/Dated 30th June, 2022 DS आदेश क� ��त)ल*प अ+े*षत/Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. आयकर आयु,त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु,त/CIT 5. *वभागीय ��त�न1ध/DR 6. गाड� फाईल/GF.