AVIATORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS-CPC), GHAZIABAD

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19/3/2019 passed by ld CIT(A), Bengaluru and it relates to asst. year 2016-17.

The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of ld CIT(A) in rejecting the appeal of the assessee in limine, without condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him.

We heard the parties and perused the record. This appeal relates to levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act. The assessee has filed the quarterly statement of TDS belatedly and hence fees u/s 234E of the Act was levied for the delay in filing various returns, while processing the Statement of TDS (TDS returns).

The assessee field the appeal challenging the levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act, but the same was dismissed by the ld CIT(A) on the ground that the appeal is barred by limitation by 457 days. Hence, the assessee has filed this appeal before us.

The ld AR submitted that the assessee did not receive any notice of demand from the Income-tax Department physically and hence the assessee was not aware of the demand raised upon it. The assessee came to know of the demand raised u/s 234E of the Act, only when it verified the details of outstanding demand in the Income-tax Site (TRACES portal). Upon noticing the same the assessee has filed the appeal before the ld CIT(A).

The ld AR further submitted that the task of filing TDS returns was entrusted to a staff named Shri Deen dayal and the assessee has noticed that the said staff has registered his email.id with the Income-tax department at the time of uploading of TDS returns. He submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has noticed that the notice of demand has been sent to the e-mail ID registered with the department and hence he did not agree with the submissions of the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal.

However, it was noticed by the assessee that the intimation has been sent to the email.id of the above said staff and he did not inform about the same to the assessee. The Ld A.R further submitted that the above said staff has resigned from the services of the assessee company on 19/9/2006. Accordingly the ld AR submitted that there was reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly before the ld CIT(A) and accordingly submitted that the ld CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay.

On the contrary, the ld DR submitted that the assessee has been filing TDS returns regularly and hence it could have very well ascertained the outstanding demand by verifying TRACES portal of Income-tax Department. Accordingly the ld DR submitted that there was no reasonable cause for the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before the CIT(A) and he was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

We noticed that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the “emai.id” registered with the Income-tax Department is that of the employee of the assessee named Shri Deen dayal. It is stated that the above said staff has resigned from the services of the assessee company in September 2016. It is the submission of the assessee that the above said staff did not intimate about the demand raised while processing the TDS statement. Admittedly, the assessee could not have access to the e-mail of the staff. It is the submission of the assessee that it came to know about the demand only when it verified the TRACES portal. Accordingly it has filed the appeal immediately before the ld CIT(A) by quoting the date of mailing of intimation to the staff, which has resulted in delay in filing the appeal before Ld CIT(A). In our view, the above said explanations furnished by the assessee constitutes reasonable cause for the delay in filing appeal before the ld CIT(A). Accordingly we are of the view that the ld CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay.

In view of the foregoing discussions, we condone the delay in filing appeal before the ld CT(A). Since the ld CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues on merits, we deem it proper to restore this appeal to his file for adjudicating the issues on merits.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.