2026 (4) TMI 909

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in all above captioned twelve appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal in ITA No.2727/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 are stated herein. ITA No.2727/PUN/2025, A.Y. 2013-14 [Q2]: 4. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- "1. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, had dismissed the appeal only on the ground of delay. The appeal is filed against the CPC order dt 21/04/2024 and NOT against the order dt 25/10/2016 as averred by CIT(A). ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s filed on 31.10.2013. Accordingly, while processing the 24Q TDS return/statement u/s 200A of the IT Act the CPC, TDS calculated late fees u/s 234E of the IT Act of Rs. 47,760/- for Q2 of A.Y. 2013-14. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application for rectification u/s 154 of the IT Act for correction in the above intimation u/s 200A of the IT Act for which the correction order was passed on 20.04.2024. 6. Being aggrieved with the above rectified order dated 20.04.2024, the assessee preferred an appeal belatedly i.e. on 09.02.2025 before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by treating the same as time barred since it was filed belatedly. 7. It is the abo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 7. In the decision in Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India [WP (C) No. 37775 of 2018, dated 18-12-2018] an identical question arose for consideration. After considering the statutory provisions of section 234E and section 200A of the Act and the implications of the amendment brought in to the Act, it was held that the amendment would take effect only from 1st June, 2015 and is thus prospective in nature. The aforesaid judgment has become final and is binding upon the authorities. Thus the jurisdiction to levy late fee under section 234E arises only from 1-06.2015 and not earlier. 8. As regards the contention on the delay, though the said contention was impressive on first blush, it can be seen that the nature of challenge....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., we are of the considered opinion that the dismissal of appeal by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on the ground of delay was not justified, since the jurisdiction to levy late fee itself, was under challenge and therefore the delay, if any, in the instant case, ought to have been condoned by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 11. Considering the totality of the facts of the case & in view of our above discussion, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & without going into merits of the case restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay & decide the appeal afresh & as per fact & law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directe....