KAMALRAJ SHYAMMANOHAR SAXENA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the explanation provided as a reasonable cause. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were filed belatedly by 120 days. The delay was attributed to an employee misplacing the order and subsequently leaving the job. The ITAT noted that the levy of late fee under Section 234E was for a period prior to its amendment.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. Whether the levy of late fee under Section 234E was legally sustainable for the period prior to its amendment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (VP) & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (AM)
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT
All these three appeals of assessee are arising against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-59 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai in Appeal No. CIT(A)-59/IT-51 to 53 / ITO (TDS)-1(3) (2) 2017-18 & CIT(A)-14/IT- 211 to 213/ITO (TDS)-3(1)/2014-15 order dated 22.08.2017. Before CIT(A) under challenge was the separate orders passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred the ‘Act’) by the DCIT (CPC) TDS, Ghaziabad dated 11.03.2014.
The only common issue involved in all these three appeals of assessee is against the levy of late fee under section 234E of the Act amounting to Rs. 28,920 for Quarter-2, Rs. 24,430/- for Quarter-3 and Rs. 11,804 for Quarter- 4.
At the outset, it is noticed that these all three appeals were filed belatedly before the CIT(A) by 120 days. It was noted by the CIT(A) that the impugned orders before him were passed on 11.03.2014 and the appeals were required to be filed within 30 days thereof i.e. by 10th April 2014, however, these appeals were instituted before the CIT(A) on 07.08.2017, thereby these appeals were delayed by 120 days. The assessee before the CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee which were submitted vide letter dated 18.08.2017 which reads as under:
“The order sent by the department has been received by his employee who has left the job and not handed over the order to the appellant. The appellant found the order lying in the drawer in the office and on seventh of July, 2014 he has found the order. The appellant on becoming aware of the fact has prepared and filed an appeal on eighth July, 2014. You are requested to kindly condone the delay and consider the appeal in view of the fact that the appellant has received the order on 07th July, 2014 and therefore filed the appeal in time 8th July, 2014 which is in time (last date being 6th of August, 2014 which is in time.)”
We noted that the impugned orders before the CIT(A) were received by the assessee’s staff who kept it in drawer and the employee also left the service of the assessee. We noted that even on merits, the levy itself is not legal being amendment brought in the provision i.e. in section 234E r.w.s. 200 by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. It seems that the late fee levied in the present case is for the period prior to 01.06.2015 i.e. for three quarters of 3 2222 & 2223/ MUM/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 2013-14. Hence, we are of the view that it is a reasonable cause for condoning the delay and hence we condoned the delay and admit the appeal. Once the CIT(A) has not adjudicate with the appeal, we set aside these appeals to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in terms of law.
Hence, we set-aside the orders of CIT(A) and remand the matters of all these three appeals to the file of CIT(A). Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on16th January, 2021.
More judgments on Section 234E
- Mulchand Ramkishan Laddha, Pune vs Income Tax Officer (TDS-2), PuneITA 874/PUN/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2669/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2668/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2667/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2666/PUN/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026