TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 671
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on. Ground 2. That the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal, failing to acknowledge that the second filing of Form 26QB was a result of inadvertent error and that the tax was duly paid within the prescribed time in the initial filing, thereby rendering the late fees and interest levied by the AO is unjustified." 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 965 days and therefore time-barred. The assessee has filed an application/ affidavit for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference: BEFORE THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLANT TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH In the matter of AMEY JAIN Assessment Year 2019-20 PAN NO AQBPJ1217D APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY Most respectfully, the Appellant submits as under: 1. That the present appeal is being preferred against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 30.05.2022. 2. That the said order was served on 30.05.2022, and accordingly, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 29.07.2022. However, the present appeal has been filed on 22.03.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to condone the delay of 967 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits. The Appellant shall remain ever grateful. Sd/- (AMEY JAIN) (APPELLANT) 3. The averments made by assessee in above application, which are self-explanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed and the Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection if the bench condones delay and accordingly left it to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a "sufficient cause" for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a "sufficient cause" for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 is a duplicative payment made under a mistaken belief and not a case of primary default. However, once such re-deposit has been made and credit thereof has been availed by payee, the Revenue has been deprived of corresponding interest which would otherwise have been recoverable from payee. To that extent, there is a clear loss to Revenue. Hence, the levy of interest by AO on the delayed re-deposit cannot be faulted. Accordingly and for this reason, we uphold the action of AO in charging interest of Rs. 8,794.50. The assessee's claim is rejected. 8. In so far as the late fee of Rs. 53,330/- charged by AO u/s 234E is concerned, we are guided by following decision taken by ITAT, Ahmedabad in G.B. Builders v. ACIT-CPC (TDS) [IT Appeal no. 626 (Ahd.) of 2018, dated 25-4-2022]. The relevant finding are as under: "6. We have heard the rival contentions and perusal the material on record. We note that in the present facts, the assessee had initially deposited the entire TDS in respect of purchase of immovable property on 24-11-2014 u/s 194IA of the Act i.e. within the due date from purchase of immovable property. Due to certain technical error committed (incorrect interchangi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorities, the assessee had again deposited TDS along-with late filing interest Rs. 46,977/- payable for 14 months on 16-12-2015. Ld. CIT(A) also did not appreciate that had the assessee at the time of initial deposit of TDS mentioned the correct PAN numbers i.e. had the assessee not committed the aforesaid technical error, there would have been no question of levy of interest u/s 234E of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also did not take cognizance of the fact that in the facts of the case, there was no loss caused to the Revenue. While, respectfully following the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani supra, we are also of the view that machinery provisions cannot override the substantive provisions, but in the instant facts, the issue for consideration and facts before us are different as compared to Rajesh Kourani case (supra), on which reliance has been mechanically placed by Ld. CIT(A). It is a settled law as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajkot Engineering Association v. UOI [1986] 26 Taxman 60 (Gujarat) that the Revenue authorities should adopt a judicial approach and consider all attendant circumstances. Again, the Gujarat High Court in ....