TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3-14 (AYs 2013-14 to 2014-15). The statement was processed by CPC TDS, Bengaluru. There was a delay in filing the above TDS statement and therefore the AO by intimation u/s. 200A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] levied late fee u/s. 234E of the Act, in appeals pertaining to filing of Form No.24Q in Q-2, Q-3 & Q-4 and filing of Form No.26Q in Q-4 of AY 2013-14 and filing of Form No.24Q for Q-1 relating to AY 2014-14. In respect of filing of Form No.26Q, Q-1 for AY 2014-15 and Q-2 & Q-3 for AY 2013-14, the levy of late fee u/s.234E was passed u/s.200A read with Sec.154 of the Act The details of the late fee so levied was as follows:- FY Form no. Q1 (Rs.) Q2 (Rs.) Q3 (Rs.) Q4 (Rs.) Total (Rs.) 2012-13 24Q 26Q 47,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ucted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012." 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee's contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions of section 234E of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.7.2012. Section 200A of the Act is a provision which deals with how a return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act has to be processed and it reads as follows:- Processing of statements of tax deducted at source. 200A. (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source or a correction statement has been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 200, such statemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with another entry of the same or some other item in such statement; (ii) in respect of rate of deduction of tax at source, where such rate is not in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) For the purposes of processing of statements under sub-section (1), the Board may make a scheme for centralised processing of statements of tax deducted at source to expeditiously determine the tax payable by, or the refund due to, the deductor as required under the said subsection." 5. Clause (c) to (f) of section 200A(1) was substituted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. The assessee contended that AO could levy fee u/s.234E of the Act while processing a return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act only by virtue of the provisions of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....919 days 28.11.2013 13.03.2019 1902 days 7. The Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filing appeals before CIT(A). The reasons assigned by the Assessee for delay in filing appeal was that there were many opposing judgments on whether late filing fee can be levied u/s.234E or not viz., that of the Amritsar Bench of ITAT in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.90/Asr/2015 order dated 9.6.2015 holding that without enabling provision like u/s.200A(1)(c ) of the Act, there cannot be levy of late fee u/s.234E of the Act and Chennai ITAT in the case of M/S.Neelagiris Textiles Vs. DCIT ITA No.795 to 797/Mds/2015 order dated 10.7.2015 taking a contrary view. It was only later i.e., on 26.8.2016, the Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5109-SC-1996-O) wherein it was held that the expression "sufficient cause" should be considered with pragmatism and in a justice oriented approach rather than technically and CMJ Foundation Vs. Principal CIT (TS 6571-ITAT-2019(Gauhati)-O) wherein it was held that bonafide belief that appeal should not be filed is sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Assessee also relied on the decision in the case of Collector of land acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others AIR 1987 1353 (SC) wherein principles regarding condonation of delay have been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. The CIT(A) however was of the view that there was a difference between marginal delay and inordinate delay and made reference to a decision of ITAT Hyderabad ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... became an appealable order u/s.246A of the Act, only consequent to amendment by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Prior to the said date an intimation u/s.200A was not appealable. At the outset, we observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mst. Katiji (supra), has explained the principles that need to be kept in mind while considering an application for condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court has emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The Court has also explained that a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging the appeal late. The Court has also explained that every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken. The doctrine must b....