SUPERINTENDENT OF JAILS CENTRAL PRISION,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD
In the result, three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed
ITA 197/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam11 May 2022AY 2016-17
Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.197, 198 & 199/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Ays: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Superintendent Of Jails, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Prison, Tds Ward-1, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaags 7227 N (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 11/05/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: The Captioned Appeals (I.T.A. No. 197, 198 & 199/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 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & 2 Disposed Off In This Consolidated Order. There Is A Delay Of 157 Days In Filing The Instant Appeals Before The Tribunal. 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 & All Special Laws Falling Between 15/3/2020 & 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 & Proceed To Adjudicate The Cases On Merits.
For Appellant: Sri GVN HariFor Respondent: Sri SPG Mudaliar, Sr. AR
Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E
20 raising the grounds mentioned herein above.
4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, conceded that the levy of late filing fee by the Ld. AO is in accordance with law. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that on appeal, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in respect