Assessee's Appeals Dismissed for Late Filing Fees Under Section 234E

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals against orders of ld. CIT(A) for late filing fees under U/s 234E of the Act for financial years 2012-13 Q. 4th and 2013-14 Q. 4th. The delay of about 18 months in filing the appeals was not adequately explained by the assessee, who cited medical problems without supporting evidence. The Tribunal found the reasons for delay lacking in bona fide reasons or evidence, ultimately declining to condone the delay and dismissing the appeals as barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues:
Appeals against orders of ld. CIT(A) for financial years 2012-13 Q. 4th and 2013-14 Q. 4th due to late filing fees U/s 234E of the Act. Delay in filing appeals by the assessee. Condonation of delay application by the assessee.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the assessee against orders of ld. CIT(A) for the financial years 2012-13 Q. 4th and 2013-14 Q. 4th regarding late filing fees U/s 234E of the Act. The hearing was conducted via video conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessee did not appear during the hearing, but submitted a letter requesting to dispose of the appeals based on written submissions. The delay in filing the appeals was about 18 months. The assessee sought condonation of delay citing medical problems as the reason for late filing. However, no supporting affidavit or documentary evidence was provided by the assessee.

The DR opposed the condonation of delay, highlighting the assessee's habitual defaults in submitting TDS statements and filing appeals. The ld. CIT(A) noted the inordinate delay in filing the appeals without any reasonable cause or explanation from the assessee. The explanation provided by the assessee regarding medical problems was deemed vague and unsupported. The delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal was not adequately explained by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's conduct did not merit leniency, as the reasons given for the delay were lacking in bonafide reasons or supporting evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the significant delay in filing the appeals. Despite the principle of preferring substantial justice over technical considerations, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee's conduct did not inspire confidence. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay of about 18 months in filing the appeals, ultimately dismissing the appeals as barred by limitation. The decision was based on the assessee's failure to satisfactorily explain the unreasonable delay in approaching the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the appeals of the assessee were dismissed due to the significant delay in filing without providing a valid and supported reason, leading to the rejection of the condonation of delay application.

---