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

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.

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

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).

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.

The appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.