JIPSI TOOLS ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

Shri Akhil, Advocate represented the assessee and Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. represented Revenue.

It was submitted by the learned A.R. that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of design and detailing of Engineering elements, software solutions, software development for engineering companies, outsourcing engineering tools and allied activities. Admittedly there was a delay in filing the TDS statement for all the relevant Financial Years. 2013. The AO had levied a late fee under Section 234E of the Act for all the relevant assessment years. Against the levy the assessee had filed appeals before the learned CIT(A) belatedly. On account of the delay in filing of the appeal the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi had dismissed assessee’s appeal. It was submitted that these appeals pertain to the intimation u/s 200A/206B of the ACIT, Centralized Processing Cell TDS for the relevant to 240/Coch/2021 2 Jipsi Tools Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. financial years. The intimation was with regard to the levy of late filing fee u/s 234E of Income Tax Act, 1961. In fact there was delay in receipt of intimation. We were ignorant regarding the compliance to be done. Later on the department had issued a notice regarding the outstanding demand payable us. On receipt of the notice we approached a Chartered Accountant who advised us to file the appeals regarding the same. Therefore we could not file the appeal with the stipulated time. It was the submission that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the learned CIT(A) may be directed to dispose off the appeal on merits.

In reply the learned D.R. vehemently supported the order of the learned CIT(A).

We have considered the rival contentions. The reasons given for the delay being the change in the incumbent is not found to be false. Further even on merits the assessee has a substantially good case. When technicality is pitted against substantial justice obviously technicality must stand down. In these circumstances we are of the view that the delay in filing of the appeal is liable to be condoned and we do so. As the learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merits we are of the view that the issues in the appeal must be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits and we do so.

In the result, the delay in filing of the appeals before the CIT(A) is condoned and the issues in the appeals are restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.