Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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.