Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, an educational institution, incurred salary expenditure in FY 2012-13, deducted and remitted TDS, but failed to submit prescribed TDS forms. Consequently, the CPC levied a late fee of Rs. 19,600 under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns (Form 24Q).
Held
The appellant filed appeals against the levy with significant delays at both CIT(A) and Tribunal levels. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's reason for delay – unawareness of procedure and ignorance of law – does not constitute sufficient cause, especially for an educational institution, and thus, refused to condone the delay.
Key Issues
Whether 'ignorance of law' constitutes sufficient cause for condoning significant delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Sections Cited
234E
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM
O R D E R Per Bench These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], all dated 17.03.2021 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 to 2015-16.
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an educational institution. During the financial year 2012-13 the appellant had incurred expenditure on salary in respect of which tax was deducted at source and remitted to the government. However, the TDS Officer noticed that the appellant had failed to submit the & 583/Coch/2024 Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya prescribed TDS forms and, therefore, the CPC vide intimation dated 01.04.2014 levied late fee u/s. 234E of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") of Rs. 19,600/- for filing the TDS returns in Form No. 24Q belatedly for FY 2012-13.
3. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 54 months and 10 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by holding that the appellant had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before him.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 1107 days. The appellant filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay stating as under: - “1. We have filed income tax appeal before you for A.Y 2013-14 against the appellate order of National Faceless Appeal Centre.
2. There was a delay of 1107 days in filing the appeal. We are an institution funded by the Ministry of Education, Government of India. We are not well versed with income tax proceedings. We filed appeal based on professional guidance received which we sought only after receipt of communication of demand for various years. This appeal was filed immediately after receipt of notice containing demand of late fee for delayed filing of TDS returns relating to period prior to June 2015. We were not aware of appeals filed with first appellate authority and dismissal of the same by the authority. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this delay may have caused.
We are seeking a condonation of delay in filing appeal citing the above reasons.”
From a mere perusal of the averments in the petition, it is evident that the appellant is seeking condonation of delay only on the ground that it was unaware of the procedure to be followed. Keeping in view the well settled position of law that ignorance of law is not an excuse and further the educational institution cannot plead ignorance of law, which is expected to work within the legal framework of law. Keeping this in view and also the principle that at the time of consideration of condonation petition, the merits of the case cannot be considered as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy v/ Special Deputy Collector (LA) SLP (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for condonation of delay.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 4th February, 2025.