2020 (4) TMI 361 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - levy of late filing fee u/s 234E - AR submitted that order passed U/Sec 200A of the Act was never served on the assessee - HELD THAT - As relying on MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT w e condoned the delay and set aside the orders of the CIT (Appeals) and restore the disputed issues to the file of CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate on merits and provide adequate opportunity of Hearing to the assessee and further the assessee shall co-operate in submitting the Information for early disposal of appeal, and allow the assessee appeal for statistical purposes. Late filing fee u/s 234E - AR submitted that assessee has not received order under Section 200A and based on the letter of Assessing Officer on a default summary downloaded from Traces, web site of the Income Tax filed the appeal - HELD THAT - Assessee has filed the appeal on the basis of default summary downloaded from Traces Income Tax Website. Further the assessee has been pursuing the matter with the Assessing Officer for issue of original order and emphasized that the assessee has received the original orders from the Department and ready to file the before the appellate authorities. We are of the view that the Revenue shall not be at loss if an opportunity of Hearing is granted. Considering the principles of natural justice, we set-aside the order of CIT(A), and provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee before the CIT (Appeals) to substantiate the case with evidences and CIT(Appeals) shall provide adequate opportunity hearing to the assessee to submit the information and the Assessee shall cooperate for early disposal of Appeal and allow the grounds of appeal for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 200A(1) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Delay in filing appeals; Condonation of delay; Non-receipt of orders; Levying late filing fee under section 234E of the Act; Adjudication on merits; Sufficient cause for delay; Principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Delay in Filing Appeals
The appeals were filed by Group Company Assesses against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 200A(1) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were clubbed together due to common issues. The Authorized Representative argued on the non-condonation of delay by the CIT (Appeals) and emphasized that the delay was not intentional. The contention was that the order under Section 200A of the Act was not served on the assessee, leading to the delay in filing the appeal.

Issue 2: Condonation of Delay
The Tribunal considered the submissions, facts, and circumstances, and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the power to condone delay. The Tribunal found sufficient cause in the submissions and decided to condone the delay. The orders of the CIT (Appeals) were set aside, and the disputed issues were restored to the file of the CIT (Appeals) for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantial justice and provided the assessee with an opportunity for a fair hearing.

Issue 3: Levying Late Filing Fee under Section 234E
The appeals raised concerns about the late filing fee levied under section 234E of the Act. The authorities failed to appreciate that the late fees cannot be levied for TDS statements filed up to June 2015. The contention was that there was no enabling provision under section 200A of the Act for levying fees under section 234E. The Tribunal acknowledged the excessive nature of the late filing fee and directed for a substantial reduction in the fee, considering the interest of equity and justice.

Issue 4: Adjudication on Merits
The CIT (Appeals) was criticized for not adjudicating on the merits of the case and dismissing the appeal based on procedural grounds. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the merits of the case and providing a fair opportunity for the assessee to present their arguments. The orders of the CIT (Appeals) were set aside, and the issues were restored for adjudication on merits, ensuring adequate hearing opportunities for the assessee.

Issue 5: Principles of Natural Justice
In cases where the appeals were dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) for non-maintainability and defective filing, the Tribunal intervened to uphold the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal provided the assessee with another opportunity to present their case before the Appellate Authority, emphasizing the importance of fair hearings and cooperation for early disposal of appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, highlighting the significance of procedural fairness, substantial justice, and adherence to legal principles throughout the adjudication process.