FULE AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORK,GADCHIROLI vs. ITO TDS 52(3), CHANDRAPUR

On the contrary, ld.DR refuted the claim of the assessee and submitted that concurrent findings of lower authorities need not be disturbed.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt, the delay is inordinate, however, it is a fact that the intimation dated 24/01/2016 was not served upon the assessee in physical form. The assessee is situated in a remote area and, therefore, technical glitches/unawareness of the e–portal, could be a plausible reason for not receiving and complying with the impugned intimation/order dated 24/01/2016. However, once demand notice was issued by the Department, then only the assessee filed first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. Admittedly, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee, since late fee pertains to the Quarter–IV for A.Y. 2013–14 as it has been held in numerous judicial precedents that late fee cannot be imposed for the period prior to 01/06/2015. Therefore, considering the peculiar 3 ITA.No. 226/NAG/2025 facts and circumstances in totality and for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to condone the delay. Thus, the same is condoned.

Coming to the merits of the case as observed above, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee as this is pertains to the period prior to 01/06/2015 wherein an amendment of new provision was enacted for levy of late fee in filing of regular statements and, therefore, we are inclined to delete the addition by allowing the appeal of the assessee. Thus, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed.