TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1945
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se appeals, hence they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: - The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in medical services. For the financial year 2012-13 the assessee had filed statement of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) in Forms 24Q and 26Q for various quarters belatedly. The AO issued intimation u/s. 200A of the Act levying late fee u/s. 234E of the Act. The relevant financial year, amount of late fee charged u/s. 234E, various quarters and Form are detailed below: - ITA No. F.Y. Form Quarter Amount 850/C/2024 2012-13 24Q Q-1 36,000 851/C/2024 2012-13 24Q Q-1 12,500 852/C/2024 2012-13 26Q Q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that when levy of late fee itself is bad in law, a liberal approach ought to be taken while condoning the delay. In this context the learned A.R. relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katij & Ors reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC). 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute if the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in various cases is applied. The levy of late fee u/s. 234E of the Act would be illegal for the returns of TDS in respect of period prior to 01.06.2015. The case laws of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt had also stated that every day's delay must be explained does not mean that pedantic approach should be taken, but a rational/ commonsense approach in pragmatic manner. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as follows:- ... ordinarily a litigant does not stand a benefit by lodging an appeal late. There is no presumption the delay is caused deliberately or on account of culpable negligence or on account of a malafide. A litigant does not stand benefit by resorting to delay. Infact he runs a serious risk, when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injusti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turns filed prior to 1.6.2015. The decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateeraj Singhvi (supra) was rendered on 26.8.2016. It has been held by the ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of MSV IT Solutions Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward 16(4) ITA Nos. 177 & ITA Nos.385 to 390/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 9 8 178/Hyd/2018 order dated 26.10.2018 wherein on identical facts noticing that there was no legal remedy prior to 1.6.2015 against an intimation u/s.200A of the Act, the Hyderabad Bench condoned delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). The Assessee is not guilty of negligence and the delay was due to bonafide reasons set out above. The Assessee and as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisit....