Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was technically delayed by 1736 days. The assessee attributed the delay to not receiving notices by post and email, and requiring online approvals. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay, stating the reasons were baseless and not supported by evidence.
Held
The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal on admission stage without considering the merits. The assessee contended that the tax was deducted and deposited in time, and any delay in filing TDS statements was a venial breach without loss of revenue. The assessee also argued that Section 234E was applicable only from July 1, 2012, and late fees could not be recovered if not collected at the time of delivering TDS statements.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay without condoning it. Whether the late fee under Section 234E was rightly imposed.
Sections Cited
234E, 200A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1064/JPR/2019
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1064/JPR/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14-24 Q-2 XEN (O&M) AVVNL cuke DCIT, CPC (TDS), Vs. Neem Ka Thana, Ghaziaba. Sikar. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 8562 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri None jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 07/11/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 19/01/2024 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Jaipur dated 2106.2019 [herein after referred to as "CIT(A)"] for the assessment year 2013-14- 24Q2.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
2 XEN (O& M) AVVNL vs. DCIT “ In the facts & circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT Appeals, Ajmer has erred in not admitting the appeal for LATE FEES imposed u/s 234E Under clause ( c) subsection 1 of 200A.
The assesse has filed an appeal with Ld CIT(appeals) JAIPUR which was technically delayed. The delay in filing the appeal was due to the fact that applicant has not receivd the notice by post as well as by email. After ITO demand notice the applicant checked income tax site and then filed the appeal. hence filing of the appeal was delayed. Also Appeal to file online necessary approvals to be taken, hence the filing of the Appeal was delayed.
2. The Ld CIT(appeals) has erred in dismissing Appeal as not admitted the appeal on self interpretation He has not rely on our written submission rcircular and Also NSDL made Mandatory in TDS return email
The Ld CIT(appeals) has erred in dismissing Appeal as not admitted without considering the case on merits. Refusing to condone delay has result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated.
The Tax was deducted & Deposited in time, the only default is delay in filing of the return the alleged delay in filing the TDS statement has not resulted in any loss of revenue to the department and, therefore, the default, if any, was purely venial breach. The assesse was being GOVT. COMPANY working in public interest and there was no mala fide intention of not filing the TDS return at source within time.
As per provision of Sec. 234 E late fee cannot be recovered for TDS statements which were due for F.Y 2011-12 as well on TDS statements late fee cannot be recovered for F.Y 12-13 if not collected at the time of delivering TDS statements to the deptt. Provision of Sec. 234 E has been made applicant with effect from 1 july 2012. It states that "Amount of late fee shall be paid before delivering a TDS statement". It means that any late fee should have fee deposited just at the time of delivering TDS statements & not later than this The authorized TIN-NSDL centre which accepted the TDS statements also accepted there without late fee, as well as the software utility of the TDS deptt. It self accepted these without late fee. there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act for making adjustment inrespect of the statement filed
In the facts & circumstances of the case the learned A.O. erred in imposing late fee without appreciating the facts & circumstances of the case and hence the same should be deleted.
7. That the order is bad in law.
8. The appellant carves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal with the prior permission of the chair.”
4. It is noted that the ld. CIT(A) had not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:-
3. I have carefully considered the reason given for condonation delay. I find that the reason given by the appellant is baseless and without any supporting evidences. The case law sited by the A/R of the appellant are also not applicable in this case because in this case the appellant twist the facts mentioning the wrongs date of service of demand notice and date of order. Therefore I am the view that the appellant is not file the appeal within time without any genuine cause. Hence I reject the condonation delay 1736 days and appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
6. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noted that none appeared on behalf of the assessee to controvert the findings of the ld. CIT(A). The Bench noted that the assessee failed to substantiate
4 XEN (O& M) AVVNL vs. DCIT the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) for 1736/- days delay since, the assessee has not appeared before the Bench in support of various grounds so taken and has also not substantiated the reason as to why the assessee could not be explained the delay of 1736 days before the ld. CIT(A). In the absence of this primary documents before us, we do not find any reason to deviate the finding of the ld. CIT(A) while rejecting the appeal of the assessee on account of limitation.
In the result, the appeal of the assesee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19/01/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 19/ 01/2024 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- XEN (O & M) AVVNL, Sikar. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1064/JPR/2019) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत