Appeal success: Late fees waived post-company merger

The tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal against late fees and penalties for non-submission of returns, following an amalgamation with another company. The tribunal held that post-amalgamation, the appellant and the merged entity should not be treated as separate entities. Consequently, the late fees and penalties imposed were deemed unjustified, leading to the appeal being allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against late fee and penalty for non-submission of returns.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the payment of a late fee of Rs. 20,000 for each return totaling Rs. 40,000 for non-submission of returns during specific periods. The penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The main contention of the appellant was that a company, M/s. Pecon Infotech Ltd., had amalgamated with the appellant company, and the Registration No. of M/s. Pecon Infotech Ltd. was surrendered later. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that M/s. Pecon Infotech Ltd. did not surrender the Registration Certificate until November 2013, considering it a separate business entity for the intervening period. However, the appellant argued that after the amalgamation by the order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, the company should not be treated as a separate business unit. The appellant presented a letter from M/s. Pecon Infotech Ltd. stating that they had filed returns and paid taxes. The tribunal agreed with the appellant's view that after the amalgamation, the company should not be considered separate, and therefore, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) were not sustainable.

The tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. The judgment emphasized that after the amalgamation of the two companies by the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the amalgamated company should not be treated as a separate business unit. Consequently, the late fee and penalty imposed on the appellant for non-submission of returns during specific periods were deemed unjustified, leading to the decision to allow the appeal.

---