M/S PROMPTEC RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CPC , GHAZIABAD

O R D E R Per Bench: All these four appeals are filed by the assessee and the same are directed against a combined order of ld. CIT(A)-9, Bangalore dated 10.09.2018 in respect of late filing fees levied by the AO u/s. 234E of the IT Act in respect of Qtr. 2, 3 and 4 for Financial Year 2012-13 and Qtr. No. 4 for Financial Year 2014-15 and these four appeals are in respect of late filing of Form No. 24Q in respect of these four quarters. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.

from . The same are as under. “1. The order passed by the First Appellate Authority is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant.

2. The First Appellate Authority erred in law by rejecting the Appeal on the ground of limitation for about 434 days delay in filing the Appeal to 3112/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 4 without considering the bonafide reason of the Appellant for not filing the appeal on time. An Affidavit of the Appellant is also enclosed to this Appeal Memorandum. 3. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the Appellant, your Appellant humbly prays that the Appeal be allowed and Justice rendered.”

3. It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that in respect of filing of these four appeals before CIT(A), there was delay of 434 days in respect of Qtrs. 2 and 3 for Financial Year 2012-13, delay of 558 days in respect of Qtr. 4 for Financial Year 2012-13 and delay of 745 days in respect of Qtr. 4 for Financial Year 2014-15. It was submitted that ld. CIT(A) in the impugned combined order has not condoned the delay in filing of these four appeals. Thereafter he submitted that in the remaining 17 appeals of assessee also, for which a separate combined order has been passed by the same ld. CIT(A) on the same date i.e. 10.09.2018, there was delay in filing of this appeal also up to 320 days and as noted by CIT(A) as per para 6 of that combined order, ld. CIT(A) has condoned the delay of up to 320 days and it was held that sufficient reasons existed for delay of 320 days. But the delay in the present four appeals ranging between 434 and 745 days was not condoned by the CIT(A) although the explanation given by the assessee was same. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) should be condoned and the matter should be restored back to his file for a decision on merit. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A).

4. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce para nos. 5 and 6 from the order of ld. CIT(A) in other 17 appeals because these 17 appeals were also heard by us simultaneously and these separate appeals are also being disposed of together although by way of a separate order. These para nos. 5 and 6 of this order of CIT(A) for 17 appeals are as under. “5. The reasons for delay in filing of appeals are submitted as under: We herewith submit that in the 21 appeals filed before your Honour, there are delays in filing the appeals as detailed in Annexure enclosed herewith. The delay in filing the 21 appeals in respect of demand of Late fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 along with interest is due to the fact that, there has been certain change in the to 3112/Bang/2018 Page 3 of 4 organization. The finance person who was in-charge of all these appeals left the organization without proper handover. As soon as we found there could be certain intimations on the aforesaid issue, we reviewed the same, downloaded the relevant intimations and preferred these Appeals before your Honour. We request your Honor to kindly condone the delay in filing the Appeals as these were not intentional, for which act of yours, we shall be ever obliged. 6. I have examined the reasons cited. I find that sufficient reasons existed for a delay of up to 320 days and accordingly the delay is condoned for these appeals.”

5. Now we reproduce para nos. 5 to 7 of the impugned order as per which the ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) ranging between 434 and 745 days. These paras are as under. “5. The reasons for delay in filing of appeals are submitted as under: We herewith submit that in the 21 appeals filed before your Honour, there are delays in filing the appeals as detailed in Annexure enclosed herewith. The delay in filing the 21 appeals in respect of demand of Late fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 along with interest is due to the fact that, there has been certain change in the organization. The finance person who was in-charge of all these appeals left the organization without proper handover. As soon as we found there could be certain intimations on the aforesaid issue, we reviewed the same, downloaded the relevant intimations and preferred these Appeals before your Honour. We request your Honor to kindly condone the delay in filing the Appeals as these were not intentional, for which act of yours, we shall be ever obliged. 6. It is claimed by the appellant that the finance person who was in- charge of all these appeals left the organization without proper handover. From the submissions made by the appellant I find that no record is made available in respect of the reason cited. Further, it is not reasonable that the appellant could not find a substitute for such a long time (434 days - i.e. about 14 months or more). I find that no evidence is made available that the appellant searched for the substitute but could not find one. Thus, this contention is without any basis. 7. I find that the delay of 434 or more days is extra ordinary delay and sufficient reasons have not been advanced for the same. Therefore, I am satisfied that the reasons given by the appellant are not sufficient. Accordingly, the appeals are hereby dismissed being delayed by more than 434 days.”

6. When we go through the reasons for delay in filing of appeals submitted by the assessee before CIT(A) as per para no. 5 of the CIT(A) in both combined orders as reproduced above, we find that the reasons given by the assessee in respect of delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A) are same and the only difference is this that in respect of those 17 appeals, the delay was up to 320 days whereas in respect of present 4 appeals, the delay was in the range of 434 to 745 days. In our considered opinion, ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing of these four appeals also and since, he has not done so, we condone the delay in filing of these four appeals before CIT(A). Since ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit and he has simply dismissed the four appeals by not condoning the delay in filing of these appeals and we have decided to condone such delay in filing of these four appeals before CIT(A), we set aside this impugned order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for a decision on merit. In view of this, we do not make any comment on the merit of the appeals.