2023 (2) TMI 1354 - AT - Income Tax

Delay in filing the appeals ranging from minimum of 2627 days to maximum of 2849 days - Late fees u/s. 234E - belated TDS returns - HELD THAT - As it is relevant to note the judgment of Vijay Vishin Meghani 2017 (10) TMI 248 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT holding that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Similar to the cases under consideration, in that case too, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi 1979 (4) TMI 29 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court condoned the delay. In yet another case in Anil Kumar Nehru and Another 2017 (1) TMI 1638 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT there was a delay of 1662 days in filing the appeal. Such a delay was not condoned by the Hon ble High Court. In further appeal, condoning the delay, the Hon ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Nehru 1979 (4) TMI 29 - SUPREME COURT held that It is a matter of record that on the identical issue raised by the appellant in respect of earlier assessment, the appeal is pending before the High Court. In these circumstances, the High Court should not have taken such a technical view of dismissing the appeal in the instant case on the ground of delay, when it has to decide the question of law between the parties in any case in respect of earlier assessment year. For this reason we set aside the order of the High Court; condone the delay for filing the appeal and direct to decide the appeal on merits.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals leading to dismissal by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) due to interest u/s. 234E for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15.
Appeal filed in duplicate.
Correction of Form Nos. 36 for assessment years instead of financial years and incorrect interest amount.
Levy of late fees u/s. 234E for belated TDS returns.
Imposition of fee u/s. 234E for quarters prior to 01-06-2015.
Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A).
Applicability of judgments condoning delay based on legal advice and pending appeals.
Condonation of delay based on previous judicial decisions and merits of the case.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a batch of six appeals arising from orders by the NFAC, Delhi, dismissing appeals due to significant delays ranging from 2627 to 2849 days in filing appeals concerning interest u/s. 234E for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. One appeal was dismissed as filed in duplicate, and corrections were made to Form Nos. 36 for assessment years instead of financial years and an incorrect interest amount. The assessee, engaged in trading cotton and cotton yarn, faced late fees under u/s. 234E for belated TDS returns, leading to appeals dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) due to being time-barred.

The tribunal considered the imposition of fee u/s. 234E for quarters before 01-06-2015, noting that such fees could only be levied for defaults post that date. Citing judgments from the Kerala High Court, it was affirmed that no interest u/s. 234E could be imposed for periods pre-June 1, 2015. Despite the issue being in favor of the assessee on merits, the delay in filing appeals was not condoned by the ld. CIT(A), prompting the assessee to provide reasons for the delay, citing developments in the legal landscape on the matter.

The tribunal delved into the condonation of delays, citing the Bombay High Court's stance on not depriving litigants of adjudication unless delays were deliberate. Reference was made to cases where delays were condoned based on improper legal advice and pending appeals on similar issues. Drawing parallels with previous judicial decisions, the tribunal found the legal issue raised by the assessee favorably addressed by various high courts and the tribunal, leading to the condonation of delays and allowing the appeals on merits.

In conclusion, five appeals were allowed, and one was dismissed as withdrawn, with the tribunal emphasizing the importance of considering legal precedents and merits of the case in deciding on the condonation of delays and allowing appeals based on established legal principles.