Loading judgment…
Facts
The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) for TDS levied a late filing fee of Rs. 38,600 under Section 234E for the AY 2015-16. The assessee challenged this before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal due to a significant delay of 7 years and 6 months in filing, citing insufficient cause for condonation. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting that the Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration of the appeal on its merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the delay of approximately 7 years and 6 months in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) against the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E.
Sections Cited
250, 200A(1), 234E
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, : GAUHATI BENCH: GUWAHATI
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON’BLE
ORDER
PER MANOMOHAN DAS, JM
The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL / JCIT (A)-2 Noida (hereinafter referred to as the (“CIT(A)” dated 31.12.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15.
Page 1 of 3 -36 / GTY / 2025 Special Judge Assam-Vs- The ITO, TDS-2 AY: 2014-15 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) for TDS has issued a demand notice under section 200A(1) of the Act on account of late filing of the TDS return for the fourth quarter of the AY 2015-16. The demand raised is Rs. 38,600 which includes Rs. 38,600 under section 234E of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) challenging the levy of late filing fee under section 234E, contending that it is ultra vires and illegal.
The learned CIT(A) vide order dated 31.12.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee citing the reason that appeal was filed after a delay of approximately 7 years and 6 months and there was lack of sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
We observe that, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing the lack of sufficient cause for delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeals of the assessee for consideration observing that the reasons cited by the assessee for delay in filing of the appeals as “not sufficient cause”.
We have considered the request of the Ld. AR for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and consider the case of the assessee on merit. After consideration of the request of the Ld. DR, for the interest of justice, we think it proper to condone the delay in filing of the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) by the assessee. The Ld. DR also has no objection in condoning the said delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 31.12.2024 and remand the case of the assessee to ld. CIT(A) for consideration afresh. In the mean time, we condone the delay in filing of the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) by the assesssee. Also, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to consider the appeals Page 2 of 3 -36 / GTY / 2025 Special Judge Assam-Vs- The ITO, TDS-2 AY: 2014-15 of the assessee on merit. Thus, we allow the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes only.