HOTEL GURUDEVPRASAD PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, MUMBAI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and we noticed that the registered post send by the Registry has been returned un-served. We noticed that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals in limine for the reason that these appeals have been filed belatedly by around 343 days. In view of the above, we proceed to dispose of the appeals ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

We noticed that the assessee has filed TDS returns for each of the quarters falling in Financial Year 2013-14 belatedly. Hence while processing TDS returns filed by the assessee, the Revenue has raised demand u/s. 234E of the Act in all the TDS returns. The Returns filed by the assessee has been processed sometime in the month of July, 2014. The assessee filed appeals challenging the levy of fees in August, 2015, resulting in delay of around 340 - 343 days in each of the appeals. With regard to the delay, the assessee submitted that the amendment to section 200A of the Act authorizing the levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act, while processing the TDS returns, was brought into Act only w.e.f.1.6.2015. It was further stated that separate notice of demand was not served upon the assessee, meaning thereby, the assessee was waiting for demand notice for filing the appeals. After some time, the assessee, without waiting for formal notice of demand, has preferred the appeals at earliest possible opportunity. Accordingly, it was submitted before the learned CIT(A) that delay in filing the appeals was on account of technical reasons and also for reasons beyond the control of the assessee. The learned CIT(A), however, was not convinced with the explanations of the assessee and hence dismissed all the appeals in limine, without admitting them.

We heard Ld DR and perused the record. On going through the reasons furnished by the assessee for filing the appeals belatedly before the learned CIT(A), we noticed that the assessee has waited for notice of demand for filing the appeal and it is the say of the assessee that notice of demand has not been served to it till date. It is also submitted that provisions of section 200A of the Act was amended only w.e.f. 1.6.2015, whereby levy of fees u/s. 234E while processing return was authorised. Accordingly, the assessee has submitted that it has chosen to prefer the appeal after the amendment. In our view, the explanations furnished by the assessee appear to be reasonable. It is quite possible that the assessee could have waited for service of demand notice. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the impugned appeals before the learned CIT(A).

Since the learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues on merits, we are of the view that these appeals are required to be restored to his file for adjudicating the issues on merit. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in all appeals under consideration and restore all the issues contested by the assessee to his file for examining them afresh.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.