9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved upon assessee through online and there is no reason why the orders did not reach the assessee. The contention of assessee has been rightly rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). No sufficient cause have been explained for the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). CIT(A) correctly held that appeals are time barred and same were accordingly dismissed. When TDS returns/statements have been filed by assessee for each quarter online and orders have been served upon assessee online for payment of the late fees, then the assessee is required to take steps within the reasonable period as per law. When the appeals are not maintainable before Ld. CIT(A), the same would also be not maintainable before the Tribunal. - Decided against assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of any such demand so that the appeal can also be filed for the same. The A.O. told that the order is available online so the same can be down loaded at the end of the assessee. The assessee downloaded the orders on 02.03.2017 and filed the appeals immediately before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, same are within time. However, the assessee on safe side filed the applications for condonation of delay. The Ld. CIT(A), considering the explanation of assessee, dismissed the appeals of the assessee holding them to be time barred. The Ld. CIT(A) also held that the demand raised under section 234E is not appealable, therefore, the appeals of the assessee are not maintainable. The appeal of assessee was accordingly dismissed. The findings of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the case of ITO V/s SG Jaheri and Company (2004) 89 TTJ (Mumbai TRIB) 895. Reference in this regard may also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of ClT Vs Ram Mohan Kabra 257 ITR 773 in which even delay of few days was not condoned. In this case, it was held as under: Whether the Legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, such delay can be condoned only for sufficient and- good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. It is a settled principle of law that provisions relating to the specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences. Authorities exercising judicial powers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra 18 of the order held as under:- 18. We are therefore clearly of the view that the fee sought to be levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not in the guise of a tax that is sought to be levied on the deductor. We also do not find the provisions of section 234E as being onerous on the ground that the section does not empower the Assessing Officer to condone the delay in late filing of the TDS return/statements, or that no appeal is provided for from an arbitrary order passed under section 234E. It must be noted that a right of appeal is not a matter of right but is a creature of the statute, and if the Legislature deems it fit not to provide a remedy of appeal, so be it. Even in such a scenario it is not as if th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout a regulatory provision being found in section 200A for computation of fee, the fee prescribed u/s 234E cannot be levied is unacceptable. 2.4. The appeals filed being delayed appeals are not maintainable. All these appeals are accordingly dismissed. 3. In the result, the appeals of the appellant are dismissed. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Section 234E of the I.T. Act provides as under : 234E. Fee for default in furnishing statements.-(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per Section 200A of the I.T. Act. Levy of fee under section 234E for default in furnishing statements is mandatory. No appeal provided against order under section 234E before Ld. CIT(A). According to submissions of the assessee, the A.O. intimated that orders levying fees under section 234E is available on line. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) correctly noted that assessee used the same email ID which have been used for filing of the return for each quarter in the year under reference. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) rightly held that the impugned orders have been served upon assessee through online and there is no reason why the orders did not reach the assessee. The contention of assessee has been rightly rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). No sufficient cause hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
