VIRAJ PATIL,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,(CPC), TDS, GHAZIABAD

2 to 713/PUN/2018 ITA No.710/PUN/2018 4. It was found by the Central Process Centre (TDS), the assessee had filed belated TDS return during the financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15. Accordingly, CPC (TDS) levied late fee @ 200 per day u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) vide Intimation dated 28.06.2014.

Being aggrieved by levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order had dismissed the appeal in-limine without condoning the delay.

Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

When the matter was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice.

We heard the ld. Sr. DR and carefully gone through the order of the ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), it would be clear that the ld. CIT(A) had disputed the claim of the appellant that the order of the Intimation was received by it as on 30.05.2017 as against the date of order as 23.12.2013. He, accordingly, presumed that there is a delay in filing the appeal by 4 years. But nothing is discernable from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that an opportunity was given to the appellant to explain the delay, if any, or not. In the circumstances, in the interest of justice the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to explain the reasons for delay, if any, in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). If the ld. CIT(A) is satisfied with the reason given for the delay, he shall decide the matter on merits in accordance with law. Thus, the issue raised in grounds of appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.