Municipal Council, Chalisgaon V. DCIT TDS Nashik and DCIT CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

ITA 1279/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9706 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 250; 234E; 200A; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1279/PUN/2019 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Municipal Council, Nagarpalika Building, Hirapur Road, Chalisgaon- 424101. PAN : AAAJM1029N Vs. DCIT TDS Nashik and DCIT CPC TDS, Ghaziabad. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nashik [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 07.06.2019 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a local statutory body. The ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad issued an intimation u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2016-17 levying a late fee under the provisions of section 234E of Rs.4,000/- by stating that the appellant had failed to Assessee by : Shri Abhay Avchat Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 31.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 07.06.2022 ITA No.1279/PUN/2019 2 file the quarterly statement of TDS of first quarter for financial year 2015-16 in Form No.26Q on 04.08.2015 against the due date of 15.07.2015. Therefore, there was a delay of 20 days. Accordingly, the ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad had levied penalty of late fee of Rs.4,000/- u/s 234E by intimation dated 14.08.2015 passed u/s 200A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the above intimation, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) with delay of 3 years. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning of delay. 4. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) had chosen not to condone the delay on the ground that the appellant had failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause or a reasonable cause for delay in filing of appeal. This kind of approach was held to be incorrect by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of (i) EBR Enterprises vs. Union of India, 89 taxmann.com 194 (Bom.) and (ii) Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 398 ITR 250 (Bom.). In the light of this law laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases referred to supra, we ITA No.1279/PUN/2019 3 are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. In the circumstances, we restore this matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with direction to dispose the appeal on merits. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 07 th day of June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 07 th June, 2022. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-3, Nashik. 4. The CIT-TDS, Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.