Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a quarterly statement late, resulting in a late fee of Rs. 30,400/- levied under Section 234E. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine for being delayed by 2061 days, as no sufficient cause was provided.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The delay was considered gross negligence and inaction, and the CIT(A)'s order of not condoning the delay was upheld.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned despite lack of sufficient cause and whether the levy of late fee under Section 234E was sustainable.
Sections Cited
250, 200A, 206CB, 234E
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
Paschion Restaurants Pvt. The ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ltd., GF-2, D-2, Southern Ghaziabad Park, Saket, New Delhi- Vs. 110017 PAN: AAFCP0487L TAN: DELP15579E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr. DR by Date of Hearing 26/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 O R D E R
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)] National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 22.01.2025 for quarters IV of FY 2012- 13 passed u/s 200A of the Act dt 17.101.2016 by the AO/CPC.
Brief facts of the case are that an order u/s.200A/206CB of the Act was passed on 17.10.2016 for filing of Form 26Q for Quarter-4 of Financial Year 2012-13 levying late fee u/s.234E of 2 IT No.126 & 127/DDN/2025 the Act of Rs. 30,400/- as the assessee had filed Quarterly Statement for this Quarter delayed. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A) by stating that the order was received by it only on 05.06.2024.
The appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine by ld. CIT(A) by observing that the order was served upon the assessee on the same day of passing it through online portal/email id thus the appeal is delayed by 2061 days and not condoned the delay as no sufficient cause for delay was stated by the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order, Assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the learned AO is arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law.
2. That the Assessing Officer erred in raising demand for late fee/processing fee under section 200A read with section 234E without appreciating the facts of the case and the inapplicability of provisions of above section in the period under purview, i.e. late fee under section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to 1-6-2015.
3. That the Assessing Officer failed to consider that provisions of section 200A(1) as amended by Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 1-6-2015 for computation of fee payable under section 234E for non-filing of any statement of tax deduction at source at time of processing of return is prospective in nature, thus, intimations issued under section 200A demanding late fee payable by assessee/deductor for period from 2012-13 to 2014-15 were unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
4. That the Assessing Officer failed to consider that a catena of judgements have already been issued in favour of various assessee deleting demand of late fee or processing charges prior to 1st June, 2015.
5. That the Assessing Officer erred in sending the intimation u/s 200A/206CB of the Income Taх Act, 1961 to the assessee
3 IT No.126 & 127/DDN/2025 specifying the sum determined to be payable by it after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed. Hence, the intimation is null and void not being sent to the deductor within expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed. The entire demand raised in the intimation is liable to be quashed being barred by limitation.
That the order has been passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) violating the principle of consistency which dictates that law should be applied uniformly and fairly across all situations or cases. Similar cases should be treated similarly, ensuring fairness and predictability in legal outcomes. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee on identical issues and demand u/s 234E has been deleted. Delay of 2703 days in filing of appeal has also been condoned by the commissioner. The present case is exactly like the ones where appeal has been allowed and condonation is granted, therefore, it requires the same consideration.
7. That the order has been passed by the Assessing Officer raising the demand under reference without giving proper show cause notice and providing due opportunity to the appellant and therefore same is bad in law being passed without following principles of natural justice.
8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit to/from the grounds of appeal
at the time of hearing of appeal or any time before that as may be advised and should also be allowed to file any documents during the course of hearing of appeal.
5. The present appeal is field delayed by 99 days for which an application for condonation of delay was field wherein it is stated that On generous consideration of the above circumstances, it is submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal was neither intentional nor deliberate but arose due to lack of proper service of intimation and financial constraints. It is further stated by the appellant that it has acted promptly and in good faith upon becoming aware of the recovery action. Assessee further relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:
1. Smt. Prabha Sharma v. ITO (2008) 113 TTJ 89 (Jaipur)
4 IT No.126 & 127/DDN/2025
2. Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) 3. Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) v. ACIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 180 (Bom) – 4. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 153 ITD 348 (Del-Trib) 5. Venus Remedies Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 95 taxmann.com 76 (Chandigarh-Trib 5.1 It is thus requested that the delay may please be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits.
6. Per contra, ld. Sr. DR opposed the condonation of delay and submits that the assessee is habitual defaulter and stated that even the appeal were not filed in time before the ld. CIT(A) who had dismissed the same on account of delay. He prayed accordingly.
After considering the contention of both the parties and on careful consideration of facts, we are of the view that by filing the appeal late assessee would not have any benefit. The delay is not intentional and thus by respectfully following the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the assessee, delay is condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee.
At the outset it is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine as the same was filed delayed by 2061 days and no proper reason was given for such an inordinate delay. Before us, also assessee has failed to tender proper and sufficient reasons in filing the appeal delayed. Assessee
5 IT No.126 & 127/DDN/2025 merely stated that levy of late fee penalty u/s 234E of the Act was come to its knowledge when the recovery notice was served on its bank. It is stated by assessee that when the assessee filed rectification application and approached the AO, it was advised to file the appeal thus the assessee had filed the appeal before CIT(A) with the request for condonation of delay. Admittedly assessee was filing its TDS quarterly statements on regular basis and also visiting the TDS portal on regular basis however, has not aware of levy of passing the orders u/s 200A of the Act imposing the late fee penalty u/s 234E of the Act which shows the casual approach of the assessee in dealing in the matter related to TDS.
In the present case, the appellant is guilty of gross negligence and inaction. It is settled proposition of law that “Vigilantibus non dormientius aequitas subvenit” which means equity aids the vigilant and not the ones who sleep over their rights. Condonation of inordinate and unreasonable delay is not an inherent right of the assessee and the delay is to be seen in the light of the explanation given by the assessee. As observed above, in the present case assessee has failed to make out a case of sufficient and reasonable cause in filing the appeal delayed by 2061 days. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing the first appeal before ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 2061 days. All the grounds of appeal are thus dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 26.11.2025.
6 IT No.126 & 127/DDN/2025