TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1075
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unds raised read as follows:- "1. The learned Commissioner Appeals has erred in passing the impugned order. The impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. (a) In any case for income tax erroneous assumption of jurisdiction. 2. The commissioner has failed to comply with principles of natural justice. 3. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals is so far as it is against the appellant, is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred in upholding the order not passing as a separate order under section 234E levying fee for delay in filing the statement under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....) would not have application. For the remaining eight quarters mentioned in the table at page 10 of the impugned order, the CIT(A) held that the delay is more than two years and the assessee has not brought out sufficient cause for delay. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. None was present on behalf of the assessee. 6. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard the learned DR and perused the material on record. There was a delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee had filed application for condonation of delay vide its letter dated 05.07.2019. The relevant extraction of the same reads as follows:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 471 (SC) had held that when substantial justice and technicality are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as follows:- " "Every day's delay must be explained" does not imply a pedantic approach. The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administrated in an evenhanded manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. When substantial justice and technica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y in filing the appeal before him. 7.3 The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sri Fateharaj Singhvi v. Union of India & Ors. (supra), had held that demand u/s 200A for computation of intimation for payment of fees u/s 234E of the Act could not be made for the period of the respective assessment years prior to 01.06.2015. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble High Court reads as follows:- "In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, two aspects may transpire one, for section 234E providing for fee and given privilege to the defaulter if he pays the fee and hence, when a privilege is given for a particular purpose which in the present case is to come out from rigors of penal provision of section 271H(1)(a), i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mechanism or provision for regulating the mode and the manner of recovery and its enforceability as retroactive. If at the time when the fee was provided under section 234E, the Parliament also provided for its utility for giving privilege under section 271 H(3) that too by expressly putting bar for penalty under section 272A by insertion of proviso to section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under section 200A payable under section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, the contention of the respondent-revenue that insertion of clauses (c) to (f) under section 200A(....