KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA BARWANI M P,BARWANI vs. DCIT CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD
Facts
The assessee, Kendriya Vidyalaya Barwani, filed its TDS return late for FY 2013-14 and was levied late fees under Section 234E and interest under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's first appeal as not admitted.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to properly consider the assessee's compliance with requisitions and incorrectly dismissed the appeal as not admitted. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as not admitted without properly appreciating the facts and compliance by the assessee, and whether the levies under Sections 234E and 220(2) were justified.
Sections Cited
253, 250, 246A, 200A, 154, 234E, 220(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee Under Section 253 of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for
sake of brevity) before this Tribunal as and by way second appeal.
The assessee is aggrieved by order bearing Number
ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1067167035(1) dated 31.07.2024
passed by Ld. CIT(A), passed U/s 250 of the Act which is Page 1 of 9
Kendriya Vidalaya Barwani ITA No. 647/Ind/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant
Assessment Year is 2014-15 and the corresponding previous year
period is from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2.1 That as per the data available in ITBA, the First appeal in
terms of section 246A of the Act was filed online on 05.03.2024.
2.2 Facts giving rise to he aforesaid First Appeal under the Act
are that the assessee is a organization of Government of India in
the field of school education.
2.3 That it had filed its regular TDS return form 24Q for quarter-
4 of the Financial year 2013-14 on 07.07.2014 vide
Acknowledgment number:-141819600001763 belatedly against
which order u/s 200A of the Act was passed on 10.07.2014.
Subsequently, the same was revised on and an order u/s 154
r.w.s. 200A of the Act was passed in the impugned case on
27.12.2023 and served on 09.02.2024 levying late fees u/s 234E
Page 2 of 9
Kendriya Vidalaya Barwani ITA No. 647/Ind/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 and interest thereupon u/s 220(2) of the Act by resulting into a
total demand of Rs.22,790/-.
2.4 The DCIT(CPC) subsequently passed order under section
154read with section 200A of the Income Tax.1961 dated on
09.02.2024 and determined demand on account of late filing fee
under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.10,600/-
for quarter 24Q-4 for the Financial year 2013-14 relevant to
Assessment year 2014-15 which according to the assessee in any
case is neither legal nor proper.
2.5 The DCIT(CPC) subsequently passed order under section 154
read with section 200A of the Income Tax, 1961 dated on
09.02.2024 and determined on account of interest under
section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the amount of
Rs.12,190/- for quarter 24Q-4 for the Financial year 2013-14
relevant to Assessment year 2014-15 which according to
assessee in any case is neither legal nor proper.
2.6 That the assessee challenged the aforesaid issues (P-2 of
appeal memo) by filing a first appeal before CIT(A) u/s 246A of
Page 3 of 9
Kendriya Vidalaya Barwani ITA No. 647/Ind/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 the Act on broad issues of late filing fees of Rs.10,600/- u/s
234E of the Act and charging interest u/s 220(2) of the Act of
Rs.12190/- on the ground that facts of the case are not well
appreciated by the Assessing officer.
2.7 That the Ld. CIT(A) by impugned order has dismissed the 1st
Appeal of the assessee as being not admitted basis reasons
specified in the Impugned order.
2.8 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned order”
has preferred second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised
following grounds of appeal in form no.36 against the Impugned
order which are as under:
“1. That the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC further erred in not qoninbadmitting the appeal by mentioning that the Assessment order, demand notice and challan for demand notice were duly uploaded and the details of challan and payment were feeded in item No. 16 of Form-35 in the absence of which, Form-35 could not had been uploaded. 2. That under the facts and circumstances Ld. CIT(A) erred in law on merits in deciding the appeal ex-parte only after issuing notice of hearing for 18.05.2024, for which submission of appeal rejoinder stood filed on 03.06.2024 and was not noted by the CIT(A), however neither appeal rejoinder rejected, nor any further date given and synbralso no communication informing the fact of the communication to
Page 4 of 9
Kendriya Vidalaya Barwani ITA No. 647/Ind/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 the appellant, thus, no proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing has been allowed by CIT(A). 3. That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id DCIT(CPC)-TDS erred in levying late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax, 1961 of Rs. 10,600/- for Quarter -4 of financial Year 2013-14 respectively without proper appreciating the facts of the case. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld DCIT(CPC)-TDS erred in charging interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 12,190/- for Quarter -4 of financial Year 2013-14, respectively without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 5 That under the facts and circumstances Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits. 6 That the appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend. Modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind all of any of the ground of appeal on or before final hearing, if necessity so arises.”
Record of Hearing
3.1 That the hearing in the matter took place before us on
17.03.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee
school appeared and interalia contended that school is controlled
fully by Government of India. It is a prestigious school under
umbrella organisation called “Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan”
at New Delhi. The Ld. AR has placed on record of this Tribunal a
Page 5 of 9
Kendriya Vidalaya Barwani ITA No. 647/Ind/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 paper book containing pages 1 to 53. The Ld. AR has contended
that the “Impugned Order” is totally bad in law and illegal. It
deserves to be set aside. It was contended that Ld. CIT(A) in the
impugned order has incorrectly observed that Form no.35 is not
filed properly, these are no statement of facts, no grounds of
appeal, no application for condonation of delay, no particulars of
appeal fee, no order against which appeal is preferred is enclosed
hence since these defects are not rectified by the assessee despite
notice to them, the appeal is dismissed being not admitted. The
Ld. AR on the contrary has contended that there was no such
defects (supra) and that finding is wrongly recorded by the Ld.
CIT(A) in the Impugned order. The Ld. AR invited our attention to
page 20 of PB to a notice dated 18.05.2024 wherein certain
requisitions were made by Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee and the
assessee by a reply of page 24 of PB duly complied with all the
requisitions.
3.2 Per contra Ld. DR for and on behalf of the assessee has
contended that revenue would not have any serious objection if
the matter is remanded back to the file of CIT(A) and in this
Page 6 of 9
Kendriya Vidalaya Barwani ITA No. 647/Ind/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 regard this Tribunal may be pleased to pass such orders as it
thinks file in given facts and circumstances of the case according
to law.
Observations & findings & conclusions
4.1 We now have to examine the legality, validity and
proprietary of the “impugned order” basis records of the case.
4.2 We have carefully perused the papers and documents on
record and have examined the rival contentions.
4.3 We are of the considered opinion that the assessee has filed
form no.35, which is at P3 of Appeal memo and so also in it
there are statement of facts and grounds of appeal. Copy of
demand notice and appeal fees challan are relied upon too.
Appeal fees of Rs.250 is too paid. Impugned orders against which
first appeal is preffered finds mentions in collumn 4 of form 35
further details of fee paid is mentioned in serial no.16 of form
no.35.
Page 7 of 9
Kendriya Vidalaya Barwani ITA No. 647/Ind/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 4.4 In the premises self-out hereinabove, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have
carefully perused the form 35 including reply to notice dated
18.05.2024 at page 24 of PB when the assessee had complied
with requisitions so made and ought not to have went ahead and
dismissed the first appeal as not admitted.
4.5 We, therefore, set aside the Impugned order and remand the
case back to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to decide the first
appeal on meritorious ground as is mandated by law.
Order
5.1 In result-Impugned order is set aside as and by way of
remand on denovo basis.
5.2. In result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 19.03.2025.
Sd/- Sd/-
(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 19 /03/2025 Patel/Sr. PS
Page 8 of 9
Kendriya Vidalaya Barwani ITA No. 647/Ind/2024 A.Y. 2014-15
Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 9 of 9
