9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 190 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - delay of 400 days in filing of these appeals - Levy of fees u/s 234E - as argued assessee has not received any order/intimation u/s 200A - HELD THAT - As the appellant-assessee was already in receipt of intimation about levy of fees u/s 234E on/before 12.07.2017 when rectification letter was furnished by him. Hence we do not find any substance in the contention of the assessee that he was unaware with the demand and intimation u/s 200A was not received by him. In addition to above fact, we also find that an identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of sister concern of the assessee firm i.e. Kedar Infrastructure vs. ITO 2023 (4) TMI 1379 - ITAT PUNE wherein, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee and even the Miscellaneous Application against the above order filed by the assessee was also dismissed in March, 2024. Thus in the light of the fact that in the year 2017 itself the assessee was already in receipt of information that such an order imposing fees u/s 234E has been passed, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
Issues:
Delay in filing appeals, Condonation of delay, Levy of late fee u/s 234E, Validity of appeal, Maintainability of appeal, Receipt of intimation, Adjudication based on previous Tribunal decision. Analysis: The judgment involves four appeals by the assessee against separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Tribunal noted a delay of 400 days in filing the appeals, which was condoned after the assessee provided reasons supported by an affidavit. The first appeal (ITA No.1530/PUN/2024) for A.Y. 2013-14 concerned the levy of a late fee u/s 234E for delayed TDS return filing. The assessee contended that the fee was imposed before the insertion of section 200A of the IT Act, and the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee was aware of the fee imposition since 2017, as evidenced by a rectification letter, and dismissed the appeal based on a previous Tribunal decision (Kedar Infrastructure vs. ITO). The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against a recovery letter, not an appealable order under section 246A of the Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed. The Tribunal applied the decision in ITA No.1530/PUN/2024 to the remaining three appeals (ITA Nos.1531 to 1533/PUN/2024) for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15, as the facts and issues were identical. Consequently, all four appeals were dismissed. The judgment emphasized the importance of filing appeals against appealable orders and maintaining the validity of appeals. The decision was based on the principle that awareness of an order or intimation, even if received belatedly, affects the condonation of delay and the maintainability of an appeal. The Tribunal's reliance on precedent and adherence to legal provisions underscored the dismissal of the appeals. Overall, the judgment highlighted the significance of procedural compliance and timely action in tax matters to ensure the validity and success of appeals before the Tribunal.
|
