M/S N.N. FOREX TRAVEL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MOHALI vs. DCIT (CPC), TDS, GHAZIABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH

BEFORE MS DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1418 & 1419/Chd/2017 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/s N.N. Forex & Travel Vs. The D.C.I.T., Service Pvt. Ltd., Centralized Processing Booth No.88, Phase 3B2, Cell, DS, Ghaziabad Mohali. Jurisdiction at Chandigarh-TDS. PAN: AAECN1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Pariikshit Aggarwal, CA Respondent by : Shri Gulshan Raj, CIT DR Date of hearing : 07.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 10.05.2018

ORDER PER BENCH: Both the present appeals filed by the same assessee

are against the consolidated order of CIT(A)-2, Chandigarh

dated 21/08/2017, in appeals filed against orders passed

u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to

as “Act”), dated 13.01.2015 & 21.03.2014 respectively.

Since the issue involved in both the appeals was common,

relating to levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act, for late filing of

TDS returns, they were heard together and are being

disposed of by way of this common consolidated order .

processed and intimation sent to the assessee u/s section

200A of the Act, dated 13/01/2015 and 21/03/2014,levying

fees for late filing of the returns, as per section 234E of the

Act, amounting to Rs.12,683 and Rs.10,300 respectively.

intimations, challenging the levy of the fees u/s 234E of the

Act, before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) found that both the

appeals were barred by limitation having been delayed for

filing by 195 & 493 days respectively. Ld.CIT(A) found that

while both the appeals were filed on 06-08-2015, the

appeal relating to intimation made u/s 200A of the Act

dt.13-01-2015 was stated to have been communicated on

23-01-2015 and that relating to intimation u/s 200A dated

21-03-2014 was communicated on 31-03-2014, thus

resulting in delay of 195 & 493 days respectively. An

application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals

was also filed alongwith the appeals which was rejected by

the CIT(A), thus dismissing the assessees appeal. The

Ld.CIT(A) thereafter adjudicated the appeal on merits also,

upholding the levy of fees u/s 234E , thus dismissing the

appeal on merits also.

before us challenging both the action of the CIT(A) in not

condoning the delay in filing the appeal and also in

upholding the levy of fees. The grounds raised by the

assessee are as under:

“1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) in Appeal No. 151/2/15-16 dated 21.08.2017 has erred in passing that order in contravention of the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned action of Ld. AO wherein he has erred in raising demand of Rs. 10.200/- u/s 234E on account of

late filing of TDS statement by passing intimation u/s 200A even when the said demand raised through intimation u/s 200A is beyond the powers of Ld. AO and even on the facts of the case, no fee should have been levied on the appellant. 3. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) was unjustified in confirming the action of Ld. AO wherein he has erred in charging fee of Rs. 10.200/- u/s 234E on account of late filing of TDS statement by passing intimation u/s 200A even when there was reasonable cause which prevented the appellant from filing the TDS statement in time. 4. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) was unjustified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant in limine by holding that the appeal was filed beyond limitation period and there did not exist reasonable cause for condonation of delay even when there existed reasonable cause for delay which deserved to be condoned. 5. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) was unjustified in confirming the action of the Ld. AO wherein he has erred in levying the impugned penalty without affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant and has passed the order in haste. 6. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.” 5. Taking up first the ground raised against holding the

appeal time barred raised in Ground No.4 & 5, Ld.Counsel

for the assessee made a limited prayer before us that the

issue be restored back to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh

since no opportunity had been given to the assessee while

rejecting its application for condoning the delay.

Ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed out from the order of

the CIT(A), that after considering the application filed by

the assessee for condoning the delay , the CIT(A) had

rejected the same and had given no further opportunity to

the assessee to plead its case. Ld.Counsel for the assessee

pleaded that it would serve the interest of justice if the

matter is readjudicated by the CIT(A) after affording due

opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

rejected the asseesees application for condonation of delay

in filing appeals without affording adequate opportunity of

hearing, we consider it fit and in the interest of justice to

restore the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) to consider

the same afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to

the assessee.We therefore restore the appeal de-novo to the

CIT(A) to consider the application for condonation of delay

and thereafter decide the grounds raised on merits in

accordance with law.

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court.

Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 10th May, 2018 *Rati* Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. The CIT 5. The DR

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Chandigarh