9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RDER] 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. We are confronted with a situation in which the question of law involved in the present set of appeals has already been decided in favour of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we condone the delay crept before the ld. CIT(A). Levy of fee u/s.234E - intimation u/s 200A - TDS returns for the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) held 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 2881 days crept in due to improper legal advice. The Hon ble jurisdictional High Court condoned the delay by relying on the decision in the case of Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC),. 3. In another decision in the case of Anil Kumar Nehru and Another vs. ACIT (2017) 98 CCH 0469 Bom HC, there was a delay of 1662 days in filin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss of manufacture and sale of Thermowares. The TDS returns for the respective quarters were filed belatedly. Based on that, the Assessing Officer (AO) levied late fees u/s.234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act ). The assessee approached the ld. CIT(A) belatedly against the waiver of such fee. Since the appeals were time barred, the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed them in limine. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that fee u/s.234E has been imposed by the AO for belated filing of the relevant statements. The assessment years involved in these 12 appeals are 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, which shows that the fee u/s.234E has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
