MOHAMMED VAZIRUDDIN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (TDS), WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, Judicial Member :

All the captioned appeals (ITA Nos. 204 to 217/Viz/2021) are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in various orders dated 25/08/2021; 26/08/2021 and 24/09/2021 for the AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15. Since the issues involved in all the 2 appeals are identical, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed off in this consolidated order.

“1. The CPC-TDS is not correct in levying the late filing fee U/s. 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The CPC-TDS erred in law to charge the fees U/s. 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by way of intimation issued U/s. 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of defaults before 01/06/2015. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have seen that there is a reasonable and genuine reason for delay in filing of Quarterly statements.

3 16/10/2016 and 19/12/2016 for the AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 and levied late filing fee U/s. 234E of the Act on account of delayed filing of the TDS returns for the AYs under consideration. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) belatedly beyond the prescribed time limit specified under the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed petitions explaining the belated filing of the TDS returns with a prayer for condonation of delay in all the appeals. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has also submitted that the delay in filing the appeals before the First Appellate Authority may be condoned to advance substantial justice on the ground that the issues involved on merits regarding levy of late filing fee U/s. 234E of the Act is now covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions as per which there is no provisions under the Act to levy late filing fee before insertion of section 200A by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f 1/6/2015. The Ld. CIT (A) dismissed 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 4 Tribunal for the AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 raising the grounds mentioned herein above.

“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 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 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.”

आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam