Pulukkool Anandakumari, Kannur V. DCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 53/COCH/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9045 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 234E

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri George Mathan, JM & Shri B.R. Baskaran, AM ITA No. 53/Coch/2021 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ms. Pulukkol Anandakumari GowriVilasam UP School Thazhe Chovva Kannur, Vs. DCIT, CPC - TDS Ghaziabad 201010 PAN – ATQPA9195D Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Arun Raj S., Adv Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 10.02.2022 O R D E R Per: George Mathan, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. CIT(A), Kozhikode/10605/2018-19 dated 19.03.2021 for AY 2013-14 against dismissal of assessee’s appeal against levy of fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Shri Arun Raj, Advocate represented the assessee and Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR represented Revenue. 3. It was submitted by the learned A.R. that the assessee is a government school. Admittedly there was a delay in filing the TDS statement for quarter 4 of Financial Year 2013-14. The AO had levied a late fee under Section 234E of the Act. Against the levy the assessee had filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The same was delayed by 1030 days. On account of the delay in filing of the appeal the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi had dismissed assessee’s appeal. It was submitted that the Head of the School during the period of the decision retired by the time the penalty was ITA No. 53/Coch/2021 Ms. Pulukkol Anandakumari 2 imposed. The new Principal was of the bonafide belief that the appeal had also been filed by the predecessor and being a retired employee the predecessor thought that the appeal has been filed by the new incumbent. It was only later when the status of the appeal was checked it was noticed that no appeal has been filed and immediately appeal has been filed, belatedly. It was the submission that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the explanation given by the assessee. It was the submission that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the learned CIT(A) may be directed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. In reply the learned D.R. vehemently supported the order of the learned CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival contentions. Admittedly the assessee is a government school. The reasons given for the delay being the change in the incumbent is not found to be false. Further even on merits the assessee has a substantially good case. When technicality is pitted against substantial justice obviously technicality must stand down. In these circumstances we are of the view that the delay in filing of the appeal is liable to be condoned and we do so. As the learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merits we are of the view that the issues in the appeal must be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits and we do so. 6. In the result, the delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned and the issues in the appeal are restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merit. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 10 th February, 2022. Sd/- Sd/ (B.R. Baskaran) (George Mathan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Cochin, Dated: 10 th February, 2022 ITA No. 53/Coch/2021 Ms. Pulukkol Anandakumari 3 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) -concerned 4. The CIT - concerned 5. The DR, ITAT, Cochin 6. Guard File By Order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin n.p.