Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner challenging an intimation order dated 24/01/2016 where a late fee of ₹ 1,32,000/- was levied under section 234E. The assessee claimed a delay of over 6 years due to non-receipt of physical order and technical glitches, also mentioning an unsuccessful application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, including the assessee being situated in a remote area and potential technical issues with the e-portal. The issue of late fee pertains to a period prior to the amendment making it applicable from 01/06/2015, thus favoring the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and if the late fee levied under section 234E is applicable for the period prior to 01/06/2015.
Sections Cited
234E, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI K.M. ROY
ORDER PER K.M. ROY, AM:
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14/01/2025 impugned herein passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [in short, “Ld.Commissioner”] u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (for short, “AY”) 2013-14.
2 ITA.No. 226/NAG/2025 2. Admittedly, there was a delay of more than 06 years in filing the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner challenging the intimation / order dated 24/01/2016 wherein late fee of ` 1,32,000/– has been levied u/sec. 234E of the Act. The assessee has claimed that no physical order was sent to the assessee and the assessee is working for welfare of the weaker sections of the people and even filed an application under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 for resolution of dispute and the same was rejected by the designated authority. The learned A.R. stated that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for this delay.
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.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 21.06.2025.