KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA BARWANI M P,BARWANI vs. DCIT CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Kendriya Vidalaya Barwani 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 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 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.”

Kendriya Vidalaya Barwani 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 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.

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.

Kendriya Vidalaya Barwani 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.

5.2. In result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 19.03.2025.