M/S. PELICAN REALTY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

These are appeals filed by the Assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Chennai in appeal Nos. to 415/18-19 [412 (AY.2015-16-26Q - Q-3, 413 AY.2015-16- 26Q - Q-1, 414 AY.2015-16-24Q - Q-3 and 415 AY.2016-17-24Q - Q-1] dated 15.07.2019 for the Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17. , 2253, 2254 & 2255/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: 2. Ms. Madhu Sruthi Neelakantan, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.

It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the issue was against the action of the learned CIT(A) in dismissing the appeals of the assessee by not condoning the delay in filing of the appeals. It was a submission that the issue on merit was against the levy of the late filing fee u/s.234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was a submission that on merits the issue was in favour of the assessee in various cases by the Tribunal holding that the levy u/s.234E prior to 01.06.2015 was invalid as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A vis-à-vis Clause (1)(C) of 234E for the levy of such fee while processing the statement of tax deducted at source. It was a submission that there was a delay of more than 1400 days in filing the appeals before the learned CIT(A) as has been extracted by him in paras 6.1 of his order. It was a submission that the delay was on account of the mistaken impression on the part of the assessee that once the return is filed, the issue would come to rest in so far as the TDS had been deducted and paid within the time. It was only when the assessment order was passed that the assessee understood that separate appeals are to be filed. It was a submission that immediately the assessee approached the auditor for filing the appeals, thus causing the delay. It was a submission that the delay was on account of bonafide belief. It was a prayer that the delay may be condoned and the issues in the appeal restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. , 2253, 2254 & 2255/Chny/2019 :- 3 -: 4. In reply, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the learned CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

When technicalities is pitted against substantial justice, the principles of law are that technicalities must stand down. In the present case admittedly the issues are in respect of the levy u/s.234E of the Act prior to 01.06.2015. This being so, as it is noticed that the reasons given by the assessee for explaining the delay is a plausible explanation and the explanation has not been found to be false, the delay in filing of the appeals before the learned CIT(A) are condoned. Consequently, the issues in these appeals on merits are restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th December, 2019 in Chennai.