AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... processing of tax deducted of source quarterly returns. The grounds raised by the assessee for assessment year 2015-16 are reproduced as under: 1. THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order framed by the Additional / Joint Commissioner of Income - tax (Appeals), Udaipur, ['Ld. CIT(A)] is bad, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions and the scheme and as otherwise also is not in accordance with the WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 2. NATURAL JUSTICE 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not granting proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard to the App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) erred in not cancelling the demand reflected merely on the basis of Default Summary, as such demand was not backed by any order u/s. 201 of the Act. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 7. ON MERITS 7.1 It is submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no order making the Appellant liable for tax / interest for alleged short deduction/ short payment / late payment of tax deducted at source was called for. 7.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the order / intimation so passed, if any, is bad and illegal. 7.3 Without prejudice to the above, in the alternative, assuming - but not admitting - that the Appellant was to be made liable for tax / interest, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt have been considered carefully. There is delay in the filing of appeal for which no sufficient reason was given by the appellant. On perusal of the facts it is seen that the order was passed on 15/01/2020 whereas the appeal was belatedly filed on 12/09/2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had extended the due dates for filing of appeal starting from 15th March, 2020 till May, 2022. It is noted that in the appellant's case the due date for filing appeal is prior to 15th March, 2020 and therefore, appellant's case does not fall within the said time period of extension of time line in filing appeal as per the Supreme Court judgement. Therefore, it may be concluded that the appellant took a conscious and considered decision at the rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious and considered decision was taken by the assessee at the relevant point of time for not filing of appeal against the impugned order. It is well-settled law that a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and where the delay is of few days only. The inordinate delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. On the issue of a routine delay and an inordinate delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil vs.Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] reported in 122 Taxman 114, has made a distinction between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n on merits or on any other aspect. Considering the above discussion and facts, the appeal filed is not in conformity with the provisions of Sec 249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable." 3. Having heard the rival submissions advanced by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, we find that before us the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted a copy of the TDS reconciliation analysis, as downloaded from the official portal of the Income-tax Department. Upon verification, it is observed that the order processing the TDS return under Section 200A of the Act was passed on 01.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8, it is observed that the learned Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground that the assessee did not furnish a copy of the processing order, nor was the same supplied by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, in the absence of such an order, preferred the appeal solely on the basis of the demand notice available on the TRACES portal of the Income-tax Department. In our considered view, since TDS returns are processed electronically, the processing order under Section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") must have been made available to the assessee through electronic means. If the assessee does not have a copy of the said order, the same must be available with the Department on its server....