2024 (1) TMI 551 - AT - Income Tax

Delay of 530 days in filing the present appeals before this Tribunal - HELD THAT - Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of N.Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT in a similar circumstances, held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. The decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Benches in the case of Y.P. Trivedi vs. JCIT 2012 (9) TMI 794 - ITAT MUMBAI held that delay in filing the appeal due to CA's fault is bona fide and must be condoned and the delay of 438 days was condoned. Thus when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of non deliberate delay. See MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT Fee imposed u/s 234(E) for delay in filing the TDS return - CPCTDS while processing the return wrongly charged fee u/s 234E for belatedly filing the TDS return. The Act has been amended from 01/06/2015 and prior to this period, levy of fee was in the statute book, therefore, the assessee is not liable for the period till 01/06/2015 and the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi 2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Merits of the fee imposed under Section 234(E) for delay in filing TDS returns.

Summary:

Condonation of Delay:

There was a delay of 645 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, effectively reduced to 530 days due to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's extension of the limitation period. The assessee's representative requested leniency, citing substantial justice, and referenced several judgments supporting condonation of delay when substantial justice is at stake. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue could not establish any malafide intent behind the delay. Citing the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases like N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy and Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors., the Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not deliberate and condoned the delay of 530 days, allowing the appeal to be heard on merits.

Merits of the Fee Imposed Under Section 234(E):

The core issue was the imposition of fees under Section 234(E) for delays in filing TDS returns. The assessee argued that the fee was wrongly charged for periods before the amendment on 01/06/2015, which allowed such fees to be levied. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI, which held that the fee under Section 234(E) could not be levied for periods before the amendment. The Tribunal also considered various other judgments supporting this view.

For assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal found that the fees imposed for delays in filing TDS returns were not justified, as the relevant periods were before the amendment. Consequently, the appeals for these years (ITA Nos. 882 to 889/Bang/2023) were allowed.

However, for the assessment year 2016-17 (ITA No. 890/Bang/2023), the Tribunal noted that the delay pertained to a period after the amendment (01/04/2015 to 30/06/2015). Therefore, the fee imposed for this period was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the appeals for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 were allowed, and the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 was dismissed. The order was pronounced in court on 9th January 2024.