Tribunal dismisses appeal against 400-day delay in filing appeals under section 234E fee levy

ITAT PUNE dismissed the appeal challenging a 400-day delay in filing appeals against fees levied under section 234E. The assessee claimed non-receipt of intimation under section 200A, but the tribunal found the assessee had received intimation about the fee levy by July 12, 2017, when a rectification letter was submitted. The tribunal noted an identical issue was decided against the assessee's sister concern in Kedar Infrastructure case, where both the appeal and miscellaneous application were dismissed. The CIT(A)/NFAC's order dismissing the appeal was upheld.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals, Condonation of delay, Levy of late fee u/s 234E, Validity of appeal, Maintainability of appeal, Receipt of intimation, Adjudication based on previous Tribunal decision.

Analysis:
The judgment involves four appeals by the assessee against separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Tribunal noted a delay of 400 days in filing the appeals, which was condoned after the assessee provided reasons supported by an affidavit. The first appeal (ITA No.1530/PUN/2024) for A.Y. 2013-14 concerned the levy of a late fee u/s 234E for delayed TDS return filing. The assessee contended that the fee was imposed before the insertion of section 200A of the IT Act, and the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee was aware of the fee imposition since 2017, as evidenced by a rectification letter, and dismissed the appeal based on a previous Tribunal decision (Kedar Infrastructure vs. ITO). The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against a recovery letter, not an appealable order under section 246A of the Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The Tribunal applied the decision in ITA No.1530/PUN/2024 to the remaining three appeals (ITA Nos.1531 to 1533/PUN/2024) for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15, as the facts and issues were identical. Consequently, all four appeals were dismissed. The judgment emphasized the importance of filing appeals against appealable orders and maintaining the validity of appeals. The decision was based on the principle that awareness of an order or intimation, even if received belatedly, affects the condonation of delay and the maintainability of an appeal. The Tribunal's reliance on precedent and adherence to legal provisions underscored the dismissal of the appeals. Overall, the judgment highlighted the significance of procedural compliance and timely action in tax matters to ensure the validity and success of appeals before the Tribunal.

---