TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence and probabilities of the case; 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A of the Act does not cover default in payment of late fee under section 234E of the Act with respect to statements filed prior to 01.06.2015; 5. The Learned CIT(A) has erred upholding levy of late fee for the period prior to 01.06.2015; 6. The Learned CIT{A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee without there being any authority as ruled by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016j 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka); 7. The levy of fee is unjust considering the discrimination in the time period allowed to file quarterly TDS statements of government dedicators and non-government dedutor; 8. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the AO has erred in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine without condoning the delay. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. The learned AR has filed a paper book enclosing therein brief written submission, the case laws relied on and the snapshot of intimation issued u/s 200A of the Act. The learned AR submitted that the orders passed u/s 200A of the Act by the TDS CPC were never served physically or otherwise on the assessee. It was stated that the intimation u/s 200A of the Act was downloaded from the office of the Assessing Officer by the Tax Professional, who did not communicate the same to the assessee. It was submitted that since the Tax Professional had left the services, the assessee is not able to correctly state when the intimation u/s 200A of the Act was downloaded. It was stated that only when the demands were sought to be collected by the Revenue, the assessee came to know of these orders and thereafter immediately, the appeals were filed. The learned AR submitted that there was sufficient cause for delay and relied on various case laws....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nforceability is also required to be considered and examined. Not only that, but, if the mode and the manner is not expressly prescribed, the provisions may also be vulnerable. All such aspects will be required to be considered before one considers regulatory 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(1) should be treated as retroactive in character and not prospective is unacceptable. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hmnamurthy AIR 1998 page 3222 had condoned the delay of 883 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree for which application for condonation of delay was filed. In the said case, the Trial Court had found that there was sufficient cause made out for condonation of delay and had condoned the delay. However, the Hon'ble High Court reversed the order of the Trial Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court while restoring the order of the Trial Court had observed in para 8, 9 and 10 as under:- "The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause." 7.3 The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek the remedy promptly. The Hon'ble Court further observed that refusal to condone the delay would result in foreclosing a suitor for putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approac....