2022 (10) TMI 488 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - Late fee u/s.234E - 529 days for the delay in filing of the quarterly TDS statement - HELD THAT - Any order passed u/s.154 is an appealable order before the first Appellate Authority. In our considered view, CIT (Appeals) ought to have adjudicated the appeal filed by the Assessee against the order passed u/s.154 of the Act and should have decided the issues involved in this appeal on merits. But, the learned CIT (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee by holding that the appeal filed by the Assessee against the order passed u/s.154 of the Act is not maintainable. In our considered view, CIT (Appeals) is grossly erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Assessee as not maintainable, without discussing the issues involved in the appeal on merits and thus, we set aside the order of CIT (Appeals) and restore the issues to the file of the first Appellate Authority and direct the CIT (Appeals) to decide the issues involved in this appeal on merits including the validity of the order passed u/s.154 by the Assessing Officer and consequent issues involved therein.

Issues:
Appeals against orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016; Dismissal of appeal against order u/s.154 of the Income Tax Act; Challenge to levy of late fee u/s.234E of the Act; Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide on merits.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeals against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Orders
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai heard six appeals by the Assessee against identical orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. The Tribunal consolidated these appeals due to common facts and issues.

Issue 2: Dismissal of Appeal Against Order u/s.154 of the Act
The Assessee challenged the dismissal of the appeal against the order u/s.154 of the Income Tax Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner held that the appeal should have been filed against the original order u/s.200A of the Act. However, the Assessee contended that the appeal was filed after taking remedy u/s.154 against the order u/s.200A. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner erred in dismissing the appeal without discussing the merits and directed a reconsideration.

Issue 3: Challenge to Levy of Late Fee u/s.234E of the Act
The Assessee contested the levy of late fee u/s.234E for delayed filing of TDS returns. The Commissioner upheld the late fee, stating the appeal should have been against the order u/s.200A. The Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing the Assessee's right to challenge the order u/s.154, which was appealable, and directed a review on merits.

Issue 4: Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it as not maintainable. It emphasized the Assessee's right to challenge the order u/s.154 and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the issues involved in the appeal, including the validity of the Assessing Officer's order u/s.154.

Conclusion
The Tribunal allowed the appeal in I.T.A. No.692/Chny/2022 and set aside the Commissioner's order, directing a review on merits. Similar decisions were made for appeals in I.T.A. Nos.693 to 697/Chny/2022, treating them as allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal emphasized the Assessee's right to challenge orders u/s.154 and directed the Commissioner to decide the appeals on merits.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's decision regarding the appeals filed by the Assessee.

← Previous Next →