NIDAGHATTA HANUMANTHAPPA SREENIVAS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CPC, GHAZIABAD

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though notice of hearing was served upon the assessee and hence we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

We heard ld DR and perused the record. We noticed that the demand u/s 234E of the Act was raised upon the assessee for belated filing of statement of TDS relating to AY 2013-14 & 2014- 15. The assessee challenged the demands so raised by filing appeal before ld CIT(A) for both the years. However, the appeal came to be filed belatedly with a delay of approximately 793, 1794 & 455 days. The assessee submitted before Ld CIT(A) that identical issue was pending before Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and it was waiting for the order of the High Court. Not convinced with the explanations of the assessee, the ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, without condoning the delay.

We noticed that the assessee had placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. UOI (2016) 289 CTR 602 to contend that the impugned demand cannot be raised u/s 200A of the Act for the year under consideration. However, the ld CIT(A) did not consider issue on merits, but dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the explanations of the assessee do not constitute sufficient cause warranting condonation of the delay.

From the order passed by Ld CIT(A), we notice that it is not clear as to whether the assessee has moved a proper petition seeking condonation of delay. In the appeal memo filed before the Tribunal, the assessee has given detailed explanations for the delay in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A) and they do not find place in the appellate order passed by Ld CIT(A). Hence it is not clear as to whether those explanations were given before Ld CIT(A). Hence, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to present proper petition before ld CIT(A) seeking condonation of delay. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by ld CIT(A) for both the years and restore all the issues to his file. We direct the assessee to file a proper condonation petition before ld CIT(A), which shall be disposed of ld CIT(A) in accordance with the law. Depending upon the outcome of the decision taken by the ld CIT(A), the issues urged on merits may be disposed of by ld CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.