9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal for statistical purposes. Late filing fee u/s 234E - AR submitted that assessee has not received order under Section 200A and based on the letter of Assessing Officer on a default summary downloaded from Traces, web site of the Income Tax filed the appeal - HELD THAT:- Assessee has filed the appeal on the basis of default summary downloaded from Traces Income Tax Website. Further the assessee has been pursuing the matter with the Assessing Officer for issue of original order and emphasized that the assessee has received the original orders from the Department and ready to file the before the appellate authorities. We are of the view that the Revenue shall not be at loss if an opportunity of Hearing is granted. Considering the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nies itself liable to be levied a late filing fee of ₹ 10,363/- under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 a) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the intimation under section 200A of the Act was not served on the appellant, physically or electronically under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the matter on merits under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4 a) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the late fees under section 234E of the Act cannot be levied in respect of TDS statements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, Quarter 4 for Form 24Q before appellate authority. 4. The CIT (Appeals) made observations on delay in filling of Appeal, and has not gone into the merits of the case. CIT(A) is of the opinion that the orders u/sec200A were duly served on the assessee and the assessee has failed to explain the delay and dismissed the appeal. Whereas the claim of the assessee that the order under Section 200AA of the Act was not received. In fact the assessee has received the order on 25.5.2018 and filed the appeal and prayed for allowing the appeal. Per Contra, The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the CIT (Appeals). 5. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The only disputed issue argued by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact, experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherent bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file- pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community does not deserve a litigant non grata status. The Courts, therefore, have to be informed of the spirit and philosophy of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 2 The appellant denies itself liable to be levied a late filing fee of ₹ 60,142/- under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 a) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the intimation under section 200A of the Act was not served on the appellant, physically or electronically under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the matter on merits under the facts and circumstances of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oaded from Traces, web site of the Income Tax filed the appeal. The observations of the CIT(Appeals) are that these are not appealable orders and treated as not maintainable. Whereas the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the assessee has been pursuing with Assessing Officer and got the original orders and ready to file before CIT(A) and prayed for one more opportunity before Appellate Authority. Whereas the ld. DR supported the orders of CIT(Appeals). 10. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Prima facie, the CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the assessee appeal on non-maintainability and defective. In the course of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that at the time of filing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
