2023 (2) TMI 1354

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uarters arising in assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the appeal in ITA No. 955/PUN/2022 was wrongly filed in duplicate. The Ld. DR vouched for the contention. In view of the factual scenario, we dismiss the appeal in ITA No. 955/PUN/2022 as having been filed in duplicate. 3. The ld. AR filed five revised Form Nos. 36 in respect of ITA Nos. 950 to 954/PUN/2022, by contending that the first four original Form Nos. 36 inadvertently mentioned assessment year(s) instead of Financial year(s), which should be corrected. The fifth Form No. 36 mentioned wrong amount of interest u/s 234E, which should be corrected from Rs. 28,400/- to Rs. 40,800/-. The ld. DR verified the necessary particulars in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a) has affirmed the non-imposition of fee for the period prior to 01-06-2015. Similar view has been taken in Jiji Varghese VS. ITO(TDS) & Ors. (2022) 443 ITR 267 (Ker) holding that no interest u/s 234E can be imposed for the periods of the respective A.Ys. prior to June 1, 2015. 7. Thus, it is seen that on merits the issue raised in these appeal is covered in favour of the assessee. However, the fact of the matter is that the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeals at threshold. The ld. AR advanced the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals belatedly before the ld. CIT(A), being, later developments in the field of law on this issue. 8. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay at the end of the ld. CIT(....