WHEELS,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GAZIABAD

PER BENCH: The bunch of 8 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, dated 15.06.2021 and pertain

to assessment years 2014-15 ( 26Q – Q1 to Q4) & 2015-16 –

(26Q – Q1 to 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 2014-15 ( 26Q – Q1 to Q4) & 2015-16 –

( 26Q – Q1 to Q4), the assessee has filed TDS Quarterly 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,

the appeal is not filed within due date prescribed under the Act,

then it is for the assessee to give sufficient reasons which 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” and hence, we are of the considered view that learned

CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeals. 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.