SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE V. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

ITA 915/IND/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Supreme Transport Company, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-II, Indore, which upheld the levy of a late fee under section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer (TDS)-II, Indore. The late fee was imposed due to the delayed filing of a TDS statement. The primary legal contention was whether the late fee could be levied prior to June 1, 2015, and whether the delay in filing the appeal against the CIT(A)'s order should be condoned. The ITAT dismissed the appeal on the grounds of excessive delay, rejecting the assessee's claim of non-receipt of the order as a valid reason for the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778819 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-12-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORASSESSEESUBMITTEDTHATTHE; FORREVENUEFILEDALETTERF.NO. A UIIINDDATED; FORASSESSEEFILEDANAFFIDAVITDATED..OFSHRI; FORREVENUE; HOWEVER; CONTENDEDTHATTHEPRESENTAPPEALIS; SHRIASHISHPORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRISUBHASHCHANDJAIN
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 6 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.915/Ind/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 [Financial Year: 2012-13 / Q2-26Q) M/s. Supreme Transport Company, 201, Vikram Tower, Sneh Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Vs. ITO TDS-II, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AAUFS5010N Assessee by Shri Subhash Chand Jain, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order dated 18.06.2018 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-II, Indore [“CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. IT- 10018/17-18, which in turn arises out of order dated 27.03.2017 passed by learned ITO(TDS)-II, Indore [“AO”] u/s 200(3) r.w.s. 234E of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Financial Year 2012-13 [Q-2/Form No. 26Q] relevant to Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2013-14, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Form No. 36 (Appeal Memo). Printed from counselvise.com M/s. Supreme Transport Company ITA No. 915/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14 Financial Year 2012-13 / Q2 – 26Q] Page 2 of 6 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under: (i) The assessee/appellant filed Statement of TDS in Form No. 26Q for Q- 2 of Financial Year 2012-13 after a delay of 81 days. The AO processed the Statement so filed through an intimation dated 25.12.2013 u/s 200A wherein a late fee of Rs. 6,000/- u/s 234E [computed @ Rs. 200/- per day X 81 days = 16,200/- but maximum upto the amount of TDS – Rs. 6,000/-] was levied. Aggrieved by AO’s action, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and claimed that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no power available to AO for charging late-fee u/s 234E. Vide order dated 08.12.2025, the CIT(A) disposed of assessee’s appeal and deleted late fee levied by AO accepting that the AO had no power to levy late fee in an intimation u/s 200A. However, in the very same order, the CIT(A) also observed that the AO can pass a separate order for levy of late fee. (ii) Subsequently, the AO passed a new order dated 27.03.2017 u/s 200(3) r.w.s. 234E again levying the very same late fee of Rs. 6,000/- u/s 234E. Aggrieved again, the assessee filed appeal to CIT(A). Vide order dated 18.06.2018, the CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal upholding AO’s order. Now, the assessee has come in this appeal before ITAT challenging the orders of lower-authorities. Printed from counselvise.com M/s. Supreme Transport Company ITA No. 915/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14 Financial Year 2012-13 / Q2 – 26Q] Page 3 of 6 3. The Registry has informed that the present appeal has been filed by assessee on 25.12.2024 against order dated 18.06.2018 after a delay of 2393 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation-application supported by affidavit and prays for condonation of delay. Referring to contents of condonation- application/affidavit, Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order passed by CIT(A) was not served upon assessee and therefore the assessee was not aware of same and could not file appeal in time. Ultimately, when the department started recovery proceeding, the assessee downloaded the impugned order from web portal of department and immediately filed appeal without further delay. Ld. AR requested that there is a ‘sufficient cause’ of delay and hence the delay must be condoned and this appeal must be admitted and heard. 4. Ld. DR for revenue filed a letter F.No. CIT(A)U-II/Ind/2025-26 dated 23.06.2025 sent by the office of CIT(Appeal), U-II, Indore accompanied by (i) a page of Dispatch-Register showing the dispatch of impugned order by CIT(A)’s office at S.No. 1113 and (ii) an acknowledgement returned/provided by Postal authorities showing proof of delivery of impugned order on 17.07.2018 at 11:15 A.M. On the basis of these documents, Ld. DR submitted that the impugned order was delivered to assessee’s office on 17.07.2018 and hence the reason of non-delivery explained by assessee is not valid. Printed from counselvise.com M/s. Supreme Transport Company ITA No. 915/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14 Financial Year 2012-13 / Q2 – 26Q] Page 4 of 6 5. In reply, Ld. AR for assessee filed an affidavit dated 09.07.2025 of Shri Rajeev Agarwal, partner of assessee-firm, making averments that the delivery proof submitted by revenue (i) does not contain any rubber stamp/seal of assessee and (ii) does not contain name of the person to whom the order was delivered. Further averment is made that the delivery proof does not contain any signature/acknowledgement of any partner or authorized representative of assessee-firm. Therefore, the said delivery proof is not a valid proof and cannot be accepted. 6. The Ld. DR for revenue, however, contended that the present appeal is filed by assessee on 25.12.2024 against order dated 18.06.2018. That the department has made delivery through Postal Authorities under official service of ‘Book Now Pay Later’. That the Postal Authorities have given a valid acknowledgement duly signed and dated with time and there cannot be any doubt on delivery. Thus, the department has provided a sufficient proof of delivery. Ld. DR made a forceful submission that the assessee has filed this appeal after a delay of more than 6 years and raising a question on proof of delivery after 6 years, this should not be allowed. That apart, it is not a case of ex-parte order of first-appeal having been passed by CIT(A). The assessee has filed a written-synopsis before CIT(A) and the assessee’s C.A. (who himself is present arguing counsel) also attended proceedings before CIT(A). When it is so the assessee could very well enquire in the matter but the assessee was sleeping for about 6 years and now claiming Printed from counselvise.com M/s. Supreme Transport Company ITA No. 915/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14 Financial Year 2012-13 / Q2 – 26Q] Page 5 of 6 non-service of impugned order and even denying the service actually effected by office of CIT(A) through postal authorities. This shows a questionable as well as lethargic approach of assessee. Ld. DR strongly requested that the assessee’s claim should not be entertained and the delay must not be condoned. 7. We have considered rival submission of both sides and carefully perused the documents held on record. After a careful consideration, we find sufficient force in the submissions made by Ld. DR. We have already narrated the same in preceding para and do not wish to repeat the same. Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay in the facts of present case as narrated by Ld. DR. Accordingly, the delay application is rejected and so also this appeal is dismissed in limine as time-barred. 8. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 13/10/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 13/10/2025 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant Printed from counselvise.com M/s. Supreme Transport Company ITA No. 915/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14 Financial Year 2012-13 / Q2 – 26Q] Page 6 of 6 (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order E COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore Printed from counselvise.com "