9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 706 - AT - Income TaxPenalty levied U/s 234E - relevant date of service of notice of demand - Held that - Section 246A of the Act provides regarding the appealable order before the CIT(A). The outcome of processing under sub-Section (1) of Section 200A are appealable w.e.f. 01/6/2015 only. Prior to that the levy of fees U/s 234E was not an appealable order. Thus, the fees for failure to furnish the statement as per Section 200 of the Act is levied U/s 234E of the Act and the period from 01/7/2012 to 01/6/2015 is not appealable. Thus, the fees levied for default in quarter 4 of financial year 2013-14 and the demand was raised on 30/05/2014 is not appealable. However, the revenue had not produced any evidence to establish this fact. As per the assessee s claim the demand notice had not received on e.mail as mentioned by the revenue. The relevant date of service of notice of demand is 28/11/2016, therefore, this issue is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided on merit. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes only.
Issues Involved:
1. Not admitting the appeal. 2. Not deleting the penalty levied under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Not Admitting the Appeal: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), Ajmer, dated 10/11/2017, for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary issue was the non-admission of the appeal due to the delay in filing. The CIT(A) held that as per Section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, the appeal must be presented within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of demand. The notice of demand was sent to the assessee on 30/05/2014 via email. The appellant failed to file the appeal within the specified period, and there was an inordinate delay without sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period specified under Section 249(2) of the Act. 2. Not Deleting the Penalty Levied Under Section 234E: The sole effective ground of appeal was against not deleting the penalty of ? 89,760/- levied under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the grounds of delay without considering the merits of the case. However, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay. The Tribunal referenced the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Collector Land & Acquisition vs. Mst Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which emphasized a liberal approach towards condoning delays to serve the ends of justice. The Tribunal also discussed the provisions of Section 200(3) and Section 206C(3) of the Income Tax Act, which mandate the timely submission of tax deduction and collection statements. The failure to comply with these provisions results in a fee under Section 234E. The Tribunal cited the Bombay High Court's decision in Rashmikant Kundalia Vs. Union of India (2015) 229 taxman 596 (Bom), which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 234E, stating that the fee is not punitive but compensatory for the additional burden on the tax administration due to delayed filings. The Tribunal noted that the levy of fees under Section 234E for the period from 01/07/2012 to 01/06/2015 was not appealable. However, the revenue did not produce evidence to establish that the demand notice was served via email as claimed. The assessee contended that the notice was received on 28/11/2016. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to be decided on merit, considering the actual date of service of the notice of demand. Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, with the issue being remanded to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit based on the actual date of service of the notice of demand. The Tribunal emphasized a justifiably liberal approach towards condoning delays to ensure substantial justice.
|
