CHHAGANLAL KHATRI,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 55/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 July 2019AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to a reasonable cause. The issue of liability under Section 234E was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against orders levying late filing fees under Section 234E for delayed e-TDS returns. There was a significant delay in filing these appeals before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was due to a reasonable cause and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication on the merits of Section 234E levy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU

Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI JASON P BOAZ

For Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)
Hearing: 11/07/2019Pronounced: 17/07/2019

O R D E R Per N.V. VASUDEVAN, VP: These are appeals filed by the assessee against two orders, both dated 21/8/2018 of the CIT(A)-3, Bengaluru, relating to assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The AO passed orders us/ 200A of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] levying late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act on quarterly e-TDS returns in Form 24Q and 26Q for the fourth quarter of financial year 2012-13.

3.

The assessee preferred two appeals against the aforesaid orders before the CIT(A). There was, however, a delay of 416 days in filing e-TDS return in Form 26Q for the 4th quarter for financial & 55/Bang/2019 Page 2 of 3 year 2012-13 and 464 days in filing e-TDS return in form 26Q for the 4th quarter of financial year 2012-13. The CIT(A) did not accept the explanation of the assessee with regard to delay in filing the appeal and he accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee as unadmitted. Against aforesaid orders of the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred present appeals before the Tribunal.

4.

The learned counsel for assessee filed before an affidavit of the assessee wherein the assessee has explained that the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was due to the fact that one Mr.Ramakrishnan ex-Accountant of the assessee left job on 15/12/2016 without informing either the Auditors or the Management. As a result, the demands arising out of impugned order of the AO were not brought to the attention of the assessee. It was only when the revised return was filed for assessment year 2013-14 that the earlier demand u/s 234E of the Act came to the notice of the assessee. Thereafter, papers were searched and appeals were filed immediately before the CIT(A).

5.

We have considered the reasons given there for the delay in filing appeal and are satisfied that the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was due to reasonable and sufficient cause. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remand the issue of liability u/s 234E of the Act to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration in accordance with law after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

6.

The appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th July, 2019.

More judgments on Section 234E

All 4,792 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234E →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →