TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Section 234E Interest Applies Only From 01-06-2015; Delay in Filing Appeals Condoned Due to Legal Advice</h1> <h3>Lubricare Private Limited Versus DCIT, Circle-14, Pune</h3> Lubricare Private Limited Versus DCIT, Circle-14, Pune - TMi ISSUES: Whether the interest/fee under section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be levied for delay in filing TDS returns for periods prior to 01-06-2015.Whether delay in filing appeals against imposition of fee under section 234E can be condoned when the delay ranges from 444 to 461 days.Whether appeals dismissed at threshold for delay in filing before CIT(A) should be admitted for adjudication on merits. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The fee under section 234E can be levied only for defaults committed after 01-06-2015 and not prior to that, as section 200A(1)(c) was inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015 providing for such levy; hence, fee imposed for periods prior to 01-06-2015 is not sustainable.The delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal, ranging from 444 to 461 days, is condoned based on satisfactory explanations, allowing appeals to be admitted for disposal on merits.Appeals dismissed at threshold by CIT(A) due to delay should not deprive the litigant of adjudication on merits unless the delay is deliberate; thus, condonation of delay is warranted in the present circumstances. RATIONALE: The legal framework is based on the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically section 234E and the insertion of section 200A(1)(c) by the Finance Act, 2015 effective from 01-06-2015, which restricts the levy of fee under section 234E to defaults occurring after that date.Precedents from the Kerala High Court in Olari Little Flower Kuries Pvt. Ltd. and Jiji Varghese cases affirm the non-imposition of fee under section 234E for periods prior to 01-06-2015.Judicial principles from the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court emphasize that litigants should not be denied adjudication on merits due to delay unless it is deliberate, with reliance on judgments such as Vijay Vishin Meghani and Anil Kumar Nehru, which condoned long delays where justifiable reasons existed.The present case involves a legal issue already decided in favour of the appellant by multiple courts and tribunals, thereby justifying condonation of delay and disposal on merits rather than technical dismissal.
TaxTMI 