SUPERINTENDENT OF JAILS CENTRAL PRISION,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, Accountant Member :

The captioned appeals (I.T.A. No.194, 195 and 196/Viz/2021) are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in separate orders dated 17/03/2021 for the AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are identical, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard together

2 and disposed off in this consolidated order. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SMW(A) No.3 of 2020, the period of limitation for filing the appeals under general laws and all special laws falling between 15/3/2020 and 28/02/2022 shall be excluded for calculating the delay. Considering the same, we hereby condone the delay of 157 days in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the cases on merits.

“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.

4 the appeals of the assessee by holding that the explanation given by the assessee for late filing of the appeal before the First Appellate Authority does not constitute “sufficient cause”. To support his view, the Ld. CIT (A) relied on various decisions which find a place in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for the AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 raising the grounds mentioned herein above.

5 condoning the delay in filing the appeals substantial justice should prevail over technical consideration. In support of his view, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Chennai in the case of Works Manager Govt. Central Automobile workshop, Chennai vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 2432 to 2442/Chny/2019, dated 26/10/2020. 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and supported the view taken by the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT (A).

6 after careful consideration, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the First Appellate Authority and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issues on merits. For the sake of reference, the relevant portion from the order of the Tribunal dated 26/10/2020 is extracted herein below:

“4. We have heard Learned Counsels for both sides and perused material available on record along with the order of Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee without condoning the delay in filing appeals, even though the assessee has explained the reasons for delay in filing such appeals. According to the assessee, the assessee had filed appeals beyond due date for the reason that at the time of introducing section 234E by the Finance Act, 2015, there was an ambiguity and no clear directions regarding levy of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act for belated filing of TDS returns. However, in the year 2018 various High Courts and Tribunals have taken a clear stand and held that amendment made U/s. 200A of the Act with effect from 01/06/2015 is held to be having prospective in nature and hence no late fee can be charged U/s. 234E of the Act, while processing TDS returns filed prior to 1/6/2015. Based on subsequent judgments of various courts and Tribunals, the assessee felt that appeal can be filed against intimation issued by the Assessing Officer levying late fee U/s. 234E of the Act. We further noted that the assessee has given above explanation before CIT(A), however, the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any reason to discard the reasons given by the assessee for belated filing of appeals but simply dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not bring any materials on record to establish that it had taken all possible steps to file appeals within prescribed time or within reasonable period. No doubt, it is duty of the assessee to file appeal within due date. In case, the appeal is not filed within due date prescribed under the Act, then it is for the assessee to give sufficient reasons which prevented from filing of appeal within due date, but the reasons given by the 7 assessee shall come within the expression „sufficient cause‟. Various Courts and Tribunals have explained the term “sufficient cause”. As per the settled principle a case that arguable / favourable points / contention on merits should not be shut out on the presumption of limitation, leading to such a case being thrown out at the threshold itself in limine. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land C. Fernandes Cooperative Vs. DCIT (supra) held that sufficient cause ought to be interpreted in a manner which subserves and advances cause of substantial justice. In this case, on perusal of record, we find that the reasons given by the assessee for not filing the appeals within the time limit allowed under the Act comes under the expression “sufficient cause” and hence, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeals. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing appeals and restore the matter back to the file of the CIT (A) to decide the issues involved in these appeals on merits.”