M/S. D.S.PADAM JEWELLERS & BANKERS,MYSORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALURU

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (A), Mysuru, dt.30.11.2017, for the assessment year 2013- 14, on the following grounds :

The assessee is aggrieved by the order of the CIT (A), by which the delay in filing the appeal within the statutory period, was refused to be condoned. As per the CIT (A) the assessee had only given reasons for delay in furnishing the TDS return. Our attention was drawn to para 3 of the CIT (A)’s order which is to the following effect : 3. The appellant is an individual. This appeal was filed on 09/01/2017 against a IDS intimation issued vide communication Reference No. TDS/1213/260] 100012954575 issued to the appellant u/s,200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dt.23/11/2014, determining TDS liability of the appellant at Rs.1,01,460/-, consisting of late filing fee levied u/s.234E of the Act, in the TAN: BLRD09709A assigned to the appellant. In the appeal memo filed in Form No.35, the appellant had clearly acknowledged the date of service of the aforesaid intimation as 24/11/2014 but, filed this appeal belatedly on 09/01/2017. On an examination of the appellate records, it is found that no reason was cited for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal to consider whether or not the appellant was prevented by any reasonable cause from filing the appeal within the due ITA.1308/Bang/2018 Page - 3

The Ld. AR submitted that the reason for not preferring the appeal within time read, as under ; 2. In this regard, it is submitted that the intimation u/s.200A of the Act was sent through email and the appellant was not well versed with the operation of online / email facilities. Because of this practical difficulty the intimation sent through email was left unnoticed by the appellant. It is only when the demand starting appearing in the e-filing portal, and the notice for outstanding demand was received, the appellant consulted their auditors, who advised them to file appeal against the Intimation passed u/s.234E of the Act. The appellant submits that the delay in filing the appeal before CIT (A) was neither deliberate nor intentional. The appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from filing the appeal in time before CIT (A) – Mysore.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR objected to condonation of delay and had also objected for sending the matter back to the file of CIT (A).

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Undoubtedly, filing of the TDS return and the intimation u/s.200A is being done electronically and the new system was put into place very recently. At times, it would not have been possible for the assessee to cope up with the technology and therefore there is bound to be some delay in receiving the order and scaling up, if aggrieved before higher forum, in response to the intimation given by the Department. On account of the above said reason , there was delay in filling the statutory appeal before CIT(A) within the period of limitation. In the present case, only a small sum of Rs.1,01,460/- was sought to be charged towards late filing fees u/s.234E of the Act. We are of the opinion that when the Revenue is intimating u/s.200A of the Act, then the Revenue should also be sending the SMS alert along with intimation . In the present case, though elaborate reason were not given by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (A), but nonetheless the reasons are now provided by the assessee before this Tribunal. Considering the totality of the circumstances and reasons now submitted by the assessee , we allow the condonation of delay subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- cost as agreed by the Ld. AR for the assessee during the course of hearing, to be deposited in the ITAT BAR Association ITA.1308/Bang/2018 Page - 5 Bangalore on or before 31.03.2019. On payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- as directed herein above , we direct the CIT (A) to hear and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.