TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he functioning of faceless processing's in honesty and judicially manner and to avoid litigation as created unnecessary by AO. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in upholding the validity of order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 154 of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) erred in holding the appeal filed by belatedly by the appellant by more than 4 years which is contrary and incorrect facts. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in upholding the levy of aggregate late fee of Rs. 63200/-u/s 234E, of IT Act, 1961 without appreciating the law and facts of the case. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in not taking to consider the submission and judicial decisions in judicious manner while sustaining the levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in without analyzing the provision of law in right prospective and sustained the demand created by Id AO. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f limitation prescribed is not for destruction of a statutory right but only to give finality without protracting the matter endlessly. 7.22. In the present case, it clearly emerges that the appellant had not filed the appeal within a period of 30 days after receipt of the impugned intimations u/s 200A dated 23.12.2013 as prescribed u/s. 249(2) of the Act. It has only filed an appeal against the rectification u/s. 154 r.w.s. 200A dated 13.06.2019 wherein the levy of Late Filing Fee u/s. 234E vide original intimation u/s. 200A dated 23.12.2013 is sought to be challenged after a delay of 1968 days. 7.23. From the point of substantive justice also, at the time of filing the present appeal, the appellant has not even adduced any reasonable cause which prevented it from filing a valid appeal within the 30 days' time limit u/s. 249(2) against the intimation u/s. 200A (1) dated 23.12.2013 and even beyond for nearly six years. Unless and until it is demonstrated that there was a sufficient cause that prevented the appellant from exercising its legal remedy of filing appeal within that prescribed period of 30 days, the delay thereafter cannot be condoned without there being compelli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use for the inordinate delay of 1968 days, running to almost 6 years. 7.26 For these reasons, the appeal sought to be instituted by the appellant in this case fails for two reasons, one that the impugned levy of Late filing fee u/s. 234E does not arise from the intimation u/s. 154 dated 13.06.2019 against which appeal is filed but from the earlier intimation u/s. 200A dated 23.12.2013, which was never challenged in appeal. Secondly, without prejudice, even if intimation u/s 200A dated 3.12.2013 issued by ACIT TDS CPC, were to be treated as the intended order that was sought to be appealed against by the appellant u/s. 249(2) in the interest of substantive justice, then also no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the appellant's failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation u/s. 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rws 5 of Limitation Act and even thereafter for over 1968 days of delay. Hence the appeal sought to be instituted belatedly against the levy of Late filing fee u/s. 234E. by virtue of challenge to the intimation u/s. 154 dated 13.06.2019 is hereby held as not admissible in law and on facts. 8. In the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e remedies but also a simpler remedy and practically resorted to by many of the assessees, particularly in the matter of the late-fee u/s 234E wrongly levied by revenue- authorities. We find that it is not a case of revenue that the rectification- application u/s 154 against the intimation u/s 200A is absolutely barred in the scheme of the Act. We also observe that when the late-fee is not leviable in the law and on facts, by levying the same the assessees have been fastened with the liability beyond and against the scheme of the Act, which should not happen. In this regard, we gainfully refer a recent decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the case of Akbar Mohammad, Nagaur Vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore ITA No. 108 & 109/Jodh/2021 order dated 31.01.2012 in which the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench has held thus: "6.1 Of course, it is a case in point that the assessee did not file any appeal against the intimations passed us 143(1) of the Act and the Ld. Sr. DR is right to the extent that the assessee cannot be given relief for that reason. However, it is also a settled law that the assessee cannot be taxed on an amount on which tax is not legally imposable. Although, the assess....