TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & 209/CHD /2022, 210 & 211/CHD /2022, 212/CHD /2022, 213/CHD /2022, 214 & 215/CHD /2022, 216/CHD /2022, 217 & 218/CHD /2022, 219 to 221/CHD /2022, 222/CHD /2022, 223 to 225/CHD /2022, 226/CHD /2022, 227 to 228/CHD /2022, 229/CHD /2022, 230/CHD /2022, 231 & 232/CHD /2022, 233/CHD /2022, 234 & 235/CHD /2022, 236 & 237/CHD /2022, 238/CHD /2022, 239/CHD /2022, 240 & 241/CHD /2022, 242/CHD /2022, 243 & 244/CHD /2022, 245 & 246/CHD /2022, 247/CHD /2022, 248 & 249/CHD /2022, 250/CHD /2022, 251 to 253/CHD /2022, 254 & 255/CHD/ 2022, 256 & 257/CHD/ 2022, 258 & 259/CHD/ 2022, 260/CHD/2022, 261 & 262/CHD/ 2022, 263 & 264/CHD/ 2022, 265 to 267/CHD/ 2022 SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee by : Sh. Pratik Sadrani, CA For the Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR PER BENCH: These bunch of appeals have been preferred by the captioned Assessees against the respective orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi as per the details given below:- ITA Nos. Appeal by CIT(A) / NFAC order dated 105/Chd/ 2022 to 235/Chd/2022 Assessee 28.09.2021 236/Chd/2022 Assessee 11.10.2021 237/Chd/ 2022 to 267/Chd/2022....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anches was also difficult at times and the required information and documents would reach the Head office only after considerable delay which resulted in the Head office being unable to compile and consolidate all the appeals to be filed before this Tribunal within the prescribed time limit which resulted in the late filings of the appeals before the ITAT. The Ld. AR submitted that there was no intentional delay on the part of the assessee in this regard and the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee-Branches as well as the Head office. The Ld. AR submitted that these Branches being part of a Regional Rural Bank (RRB) were also not equipped with the State of Art Communication Equipment like high-speed internet and computers etc. Thus, all these factors went into causing delay in late filing of the appeals. The Ld. AR prayed that in the interest of substantial justice, the captioned appeals should be admitted to be heard on merits. 4.0 Per contra, the Ld. Sr.DR opposed the assessee's prayer for condonation of delay and submitted that the provisions of Income Tax law are the same for every one and just because the assessee did not have a suitable infr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). 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 their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time." As pointed out earlier, an appeal under Section 96 CPC is a statutory right. Generally, delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned, in the interest of justice, where there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide is imputa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was received by the assessee on 02.04.2021 and, thereafter, the appeal had been filed before the NFAC on 16.04.2021 which was even apparent from the paragraph 1 of the order of the NFAC. It was submitted that, the appeal before the NFAC had been filed within the prescribed period of 30 days and, thus, the NFAC had grossly mis-appreciated the facts by dismissing the appeal of the assessee as being not maintainable in view of the alleged inordinate delay in filing the appeal before it. 6.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that there was a mistake apparent from the record which the assessee had sought to be rectified because the late filing fee u/s 234E had been levied on various assessees for the periods which were prior to 01.06.2015 which was in the very teeth of the various judicial pronouncements across the country wherein it had been held that no late fee was leviable u/s 234E for periods prior to 1st June, 2015. The Ld. AR drew our attention to a paper book containing numerous judicial precedents in favour of the assessee wherein it has been held that no levy u/s 234E of the Act can be imposed for late filing of TDS returns prior to 01.6.2015. The L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ectifiable in terms of section 154 of the Act. It was further argued that the assessee has not demonstrated before the NFAC how various case laws supported its case, therefore, the NFAC could not be said to have committed an error in dismissing the assessee's appeal. The Ld. AR also submitted that there were 383 appeals on the issue filed by the various Branches of the Bank and out of these 192 appeals were decided by the NFAC in the favour of the assessee and 28 appeals were still in the process of hearing while 163 appeals which were dismissed were now before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR placed a copy of the order of the NFAC in the case of Chamba Branch of the Bank for assessment year 2015-16 and submitted that here the NFAC had accepted the assessee's appeal u/s 154 of the Act and had allowed the assessee's appeal by holding that no late fee was leviable u/s 234E of the Act. It was submitted that there were 191 similar orders and, thus, apparently there was a diversion in the view taken by the NFAC on the issue. 8.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. The facts are not in dispute. The essential question for us to consider is whether - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by CPC on the same day. The CIT(A) was of the view that there was no merit in condonation of delay, wherein appeals were filed beyond the period prescribed. The assessee had filed appeals against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, hence the time period of appeals filed by assessee before the CIT(A) have to be computed from the date of order passed under section 154 of the Act and not from the date of issue of intimation. Thus, there is no merit in the order of CIT (A) in dismissing the appeals of assessee on this issue. " 8.4 Therefore, in view of the above order of the ITAT Pune Bench, we also hold that the NFAC had erred in dismissing the appeals of the assessees as being time-arred by taking the date of intimation u/s 200A of the Act as the basis for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal. The NFAC should have taken the date of intimation u/s 154 of the Act for the purpose of computing the limitation period. Admittedly, and, undisputedly, the appeals before the NFAC were within time if we take the date of intimation u/s 154 of the Act. Accordingly, in our considered view we find that NFAC was patently incorrect in out-rightly rejecting the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee has filed the appeal against the order passed u/s 154 on 02.03.2019 which is well within the time. Even the ld.CIT(A) at para 4.2 of his order has also mentioned that the assessee has filed the appeal against the correction dated 11.02.2019. However, the ld.CIT(A), without considering the facts properly, has held that there is inordinate delay in filing of the appeals before him and the assessee failed to submit explanation so as to justify the above delay for which he dismissed the appeals on account of delay in filing these appeals. In our opinion, there is no delay in the instant case and all these confusion arose because of some typographical error in the Form 35 where the assessee, instead of mentioning section 154, mentioned section 200A against the section and subsection of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We, therefore, find merit in the argument of the ld. Counsel that there is no delay in filing of the above appeals. 23. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Remfry and Sons (supra) has held that procedural/technical mistakes could not stand in the way of imparting justice and the authority must allow opportunity to the assessee to rectify mistakes. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the absence of any decision rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court, then the decision in favour of the assessee needs to be followed as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vegetables Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192(SC). The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- 11. "We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue arising in the present bunch of appeals is against levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act while issuing intimation under section 200A of the Act, in the first bunch of appeals. The second bunch of appeals in the case of Junagade Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. is against order of Assessing Officer passed under section 154 of the Act rejecting rectification application moved by assessee against intimation issued levying late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act. The case of assessee before us is that the issue is squarely covered by various orders of Tribunal, wherein the issue has been decided in respect of levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act, in the absence of empowerment by the Act upon Assessing Officer to levy such fees while issuing intimation under section 200A of the Act. The Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as conferring substantive power upon the authority. It is true that, a regulatory mechanism by insertion of any provision made in the statute book, may have a retroactive character but, whether such provision provides for a mere regulatory mechanism or confers substantive power upon the authority would also be a aspect which may be required to be considered before such provisions is held to be retroactive in nature. Further, when any provision is inserted for liability to pay any tax or the fee by way of compensatory in nature or fee independently simultaneously mode and the manner of its enforceability 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 271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act for computation and intimation for payment of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act relating to the period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015 were not maintainable and were set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. In view of said proposition being laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka (supra), there is no merit in observations of CIT(A) that in the present case, where the returns of TDS were filed for each of the quarters after 1st day of June, 2015 and even the order charging late filing fees was passed after June, 2015, then the same are maintainable, since the amendment had come into effect. The CIT(A) has overlooked the fact that notices under section 200A of the Act were issued for computing and charging late filing fees under section 234E of the Act for the period of tax deducted prior to 1st day of June, 2015. The same cannot be charged by issue of notices after 1st day of June, 2015 even where the returns were filed belatedly by the deductor after 1st June, 2015, where it clearly related to the period prior to 01.06.2015. 16. We hold that the issue raised in the present bunch of appeals is identical to the issue raised before the Tribunal ....