9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1161 - AT - Income TaxLimitation period to file the appeal - Covid period leverage - HELD THAT - The date of filling the appeal was 27.10.2021 and the date of order is 30.11.2020. The period of exclusion is from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining all person shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. Thus the appeal in this case is filed within the 90 days from 03.10.2021 i.e. on 27.10.2021. Levy of penalty u/s 234E - delay of 484 days in filling Form No. 26Q - technical glitches on the part of the system - HELD THAT - Assessee has paid tax on 07.05.2019, 07.06.2019 and 04.07.2019. Later on, when it was came to the knowledge to the assessee that the data of same deduction has to file in Form No. 26Q hence immediately trust made efforts to file correction statement. However, due to technically reason Traces has not allowed to make correction in Form 24Q and also not permitted to replace the data in Form No 26Q directly through correction statement. Therefore, assessee trust compelled to file return in another Form 26Q and the same Form was processed u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the Central processing Cell of TDS treated the same return as a new return. Accordingly, the Central processing Cell of TDS has imposed late fee considering the delay of 484 days ignoring the facts of the case. The intimation of demand in this regard was received to assessee on 14.07.2021 from the jurisdiction assessing officer. Thus, it is evidently clear that there is no delay in payment of taxes but due to the technical glitches on the part of the system the correct form is uploaded. Thus we direct the ld. AO to delete the levy of penalty - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal. 2. Applicability of the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to COVID-19. 3. Non-adjudication of the case on merits by CIT(A). 4. Levy of late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act due to technical errors in filing TDS returns. Summary: 1. Delay in Filing the Appeal: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in deciding that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible time. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the grounds of delay, stating that the appeal was not filed within the prescribed time nor was a condonation of delay sought. The assessee contended that the intimation dated 30.11.2020 was not received, and the notice of due demand was received on 14.07.2021. The appeal was filed on 27.10.2021, within the extended period due to COVID-19. 2. Applicability of the Supreme Court's Extension of Limitation Due to COVID-19: The CIT(A) did not take cognizance of the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022, which extended the limitation period due to COVID-19 till 28.02.2022. The assessee argued that the appeal was filed within the extended time and was not time-barred. The Tribunal noted that the period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 was excluded, and the appeal was filed within 90 days from 03.10.2021, making it timely. 3. Non-Adjudication of the Case on Merits by CIT(A): The CIT(A) did not decide the case on merits, dismissing it solely on the grounds of delay. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) should have considered the merits of the case, especially given the technical issues and the timely payment of taxes by the assessee. 4. Levy of Late Filing Fee Under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act: The assessee initially filed TDS returns in Form 24Q instead of 26Q due to a technical error. Upon realization, the assessee filed correction statements, but the system did not allow corrections, compelling the filing of a new Form 26Q. The Central Processing Cell of TDS treated this as a new return and imposed a late fee of Rs. 96,800/- for a delay of 484 days. The Tribunal, following the ITAT Ahmedabad's decision in a similar case, held that the late fee should not be imposed due to the technical nature of the error and the absence of any loss to the Revenue. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the delay in filing the appeal was justified due to the Supreme Court's COVID-19 extension, and the late fee imposed under section 234E was unwarranted due to the technical error in filing TDS returns. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty.
|
