Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR
ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 22-09-2021, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2014-15 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. That on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in view of the oral and written submissions made and the evidence adduced, the order of the lower authorities is against the law and facts of the case.
2 SEAWORD EXPORT PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without acknowledging the fact that appeal was filed within due date of service of the notice and without providing any opportunity of hearing which is against the principle of natural justice and without appreciating the fact that the appellant had a reasonable cause.
That the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not deciding the issue on merit and confirming the addition made b the AO (TDS, CPC) in charging fees u/s 234E vide order u/s 200A in the amount of Rs.34,000/- for late filing of TDS return statement while the law states that the same has to be deposited before filing of TDS return and Chapter XVII of the IT Act has no provision entrusted therein for recovery of the said fees after the TDS return was filed by the assessee.
2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its TDS statements in Form 24Q of Q2 & Q3 of F.Y. 2013-14 after the due date of filing the same and accordingly a late filing fee u/s 234E of Rs.10,600/- & Rs.23,400/- amounting to Rs.34,000/- were levied by the AO vide orders/ intimations dated 14-03-2014 & 19-05-2014 issued u/s 200A of the Act. 2.2 In first appeal before the ld CIT(A), it was noticed by the ld. CIT(A) that assessee had tendered no credible explanation as to the delay of 1773 days in filling the appeal. The ld.CIT(A) further observed that the assessee could not substantiate the justifiable reason for such delay of 1773 days in filing the appeal before him. The relevant portion of the submissions of the Accountant of the 3 SEAWORD EXPORT PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA assessee company before the ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay is reproduced as under:- ‘’1. That due to some unavoidable circumstances, I had to shift my job from above named company to Maruti Sales Corporation.
That while leaving the office, due to my oversight I forgot to inform about the said penalty order for further action to my colleague and therefore the limitation to file the said appeal was expired and the company could not file the appeal.’’ The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assesseee could not substantiate the justifiable reason for such inordinate delay of 1773 days in filing the appeal before him. 2.4 Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter before this Bench of ITAT who also noticed that there is delay of 03 days in filing the appeal by the asseessee for which the assessee has neither filed the application for condonation of delay nor any justifiable reason was advanced by the ld. AR of the assessee. 2.5 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the AO. 2.6 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee remained lethargic and unserious to pursue its case and there is inordinate delay of 1773 days for which the assessee could not advance the justifiable cause for such 4 SEAWORD EXPORT PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). It is also pertinent to mention that the assessee also failed to submit the appeal before the ITAT in time and thus the appeal was late filed by 03 days for which no condonation application has been filed by the assessee to condone the delay. The Bench further finds that the assessee is not serious to pursue its case in spite of the fact that its appeal was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground of inordinate delay of 1773 days in filing the appeal. In this view of the matter, the Bench has no other alternative except to confirm the action of the ld. CIT(A). Thus the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as indicated hereinabove. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17-04-2023