TDS compliance and late fee relief: duplicate Form 26QB filing deleted, but interest on delayed re-deposit upheld.

An ITAT decision on delayed TDS compliance treated an NRI assessee's inability to access the registered email account and later approach to counsel as sufficient cause, so the appeal delay was condoned. It also upheld interest on a delayed re-deposit of TDS, reasoning that the later payment was a duplicate re-deposit and the Revenue was deprived of the time value of tax. By contrast, late fee under section 234E for a subsequent Form 26QB filing was deleted because the filing arose from an inadvertent duplicate payment after the original TDS had already been deposited and reported within time, making the default technical and duplicative.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether delay of 967 days in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned; (ii) whether interest levied on the delayed re-deposit of TDS was sustainable; (iii) whether late fee levied under section 234E for the subsequent Form 26QB filing was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether delay of 967 days in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The explanation showed that the assessee was an NRI, was residing abroad, could not access the registered email account and later approached counsel after learning of the order. No contrary material was brought on record. The statutory power under section 253(5) permits admission of an appeal on showing sufficient cause, and a justice-oriented approach was applied.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the appeal was admitted.

Issue (ii): Whether interest levied on the delayed re-deposit of TDS was sustainable.

Analysis: The original TDS was deposited within time, but the later payment was a duplicate re-deposit made after the prescribed time. Once the re-deposit was made and credit was availed by the payee, the Revenue suffered deprivation of corresponding interest. The delayed payment was therefore not treated as a case warranting deletion of interest.

Conclusion: The levy of interest was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether late fee levied under section 234E for the subsequent Form 26QB filing was sustainable.

Analysis: The later Form 26QB filing arose from an inadvertent duplicate payment after the original TDS had already been deposited and reported within time. The matter was treated as a technical and duplicative error, with no loss to the Revenue, and the decision followed the justice-oriented view adopted in comparable factual situations.

Conclusion: The late fee was directed to be deleted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of deletion of the late fee, while the interest component was sustained, leaving the assessee with partial relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the original TDS deposit and reporting were made within time, a later duplicate filing caused by an inadvertent technical error may not justify late fee under section 234E, but delayed re-deposit can still attract interest where the Revenue is deprived of the time value of tax.

---