2020 (12) TMI 289 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - delay of 14 to 20 days - adjustment on accounts of late fee levy u/s 234E - processing quarterly TDS statement filed by the assessee for the financial year 2012-13 and 2015-16 respectively U/s 200A(1)- HELD THAT - As perused of the application for condonation of delay we find that the assessee has explained the cause of delay of 14, 17 20 days in filing the appeals as respective offices of the assessee are situated in rural areas far from the head office at Ajmer as well as the tax consultant of the assessee also available in Ajmer. The assessee has explained that while taking the advice of the tax consultant as well as approval of the headquarter it took some times which has resulted the delay in filing these appeals. So far as the appeals pertaining to the financial year 2012-13 the assessee has a prima facie good case due to the reason that those cases pertains to pre-amendment of Section 200A(1) of the Act w.e.f. 01.06.2015 whereby the AO is given the power to make the adjustment on accounts of late fee levy U/s 234E of the Act. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice we condone the delay of 14, 17 20 days in filing these appeals by the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Condonation of delay in filing appeals due to levy of late fees under IT Act
- Dismissal of appeals by CIT(A) without considering merits
- Adjustment made by AO under Section 200A(1) for late fee levy under Section 234E
- Prima facie case for appeals pertaining to pre-amendment period
- Reasonableness of delay in filing appeals before CIT(A)

Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The assessee, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., filed 12 appeals against orders of the CIT(A) regarding late fee levy under Section 234E of the IT Act. The delay of 14, 17, and 20 days respectively was explained due to rural office locations and consultation process with the head office in Ajmer. The Tribunal considered the reasons valid, especially for pre-amendment cases, and condoned the delay, emphasizing the interest of justice.

Dismissal of Appeals by CIT(A) Without Considering Merits:
The main contention was that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without evaluating the issues on merits. The assessee filed appeals belatedly upon discovering the AO's adjustments for late fee levy under Section 234E. The Tribunal found the delay justifiable, given the lack of prior notices to the assessee, and directed the matters to be decided on merits after condoning the delay.

Adjustment Made by AO under Section 200A(1) for Late Fee Levy under Section 234E:
The AO made adjustments under Section 200A(1) for late fee levy under Section 234E without prior notices to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that these were processing orders, not assessment proceedings requiring the assessee's participation. The adjustments were made for periods before the relevant amendment, supporting the assessee's argument for condonation of delay and consideration on merits.

Prima Facie Case for Appeals Pertaining to Pre-Amendment Period:
For cases related to the pre-amendment period, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's prima facie strong case due to the changes in Section 200A(1) post-amendment. The AO's adjustments made during the processing of TDS statements were deemed arguable, justifying the condonation of delay and reopening the matters for consideration on merits.

Reasonableness of Delay in Filing Appeals Before CIT(A):
Despite significant delays ranging from 784 to 1720 days in filing appeals before the CIT(A), the Tribunal found the reasons provided by the assessee for the delays reasonable and bona fide. The absence of physical notices from the AO, coupled with processing orders made in the background, supported the condonation of delay and remittance of matters to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of considering merits and the interest of justice in tax matters.