CAPTAIN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

PER BENCH: The bunch of 15 appeals filed by the assessee are directed

against separate, but identical orders passed by the learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal

Centre, Delhi, all dated 30.09.2021 and pertain to assessment

years 2013-14 (26Q – Q3, Q4, Q4), 2014-15 (26Q – Q1, Q2, Q2,

Q3, Q4 & Q4), 2015-16 (26Q – Q1, Q2, Q3, Q3, Q4, & Q4). Since,

facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience these appeals were heard together and are being

disposed off, by this consolidated order.

assessment years 2013-14 (26Q – Q3, Q4, Q4), 2014-15

(26Q – Q1, Q2, Q2, Q3, Q4 & Q4), 2015-16 (26Q – Q1, Q2,

Q3, Q3, Q4, & 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 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 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 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

explains the reasons for not filing appeals 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

on certain judicial precedents of the Hon’ble High Courts,

including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mani Mandir Sewa Nyas Samiti Ramghat Ayodhya

Vs. CIT ([2020]119 taxmann.com 383). Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeals before us.

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 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 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 appeals 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, 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 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 appeals within the time allowed

under the Act comes under the expression “sufficient cause” CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeals.

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

on merits.