TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05.12.2016 and 04.12.2016. Since there is no dispute to the facts mentioned hereinabove, it is crystal clear that all these three orders passed on 29.08.2016, 05.12.2016 and 04.12.2016 are time barred by limitation. We therefore find merit in the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and hold that the levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act at ₹ 18,400/- 42,000/- and 6820/- challenged before us deserves to be deleted as the order passed u/s 200(A) levying such fees are time barred by limitation and deserves to be quashed. Thus the assessee s appeal allowed. Levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act prior to 1st June, 2015 - Orders u/s 200A of the Act as processed on 27th March, 2015 - HELD THAT:- Only w.e.f. 1st June, 2015 that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(Appeals) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal dismissing the appeal as unadmitted. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in not exercising the discretion vested upon him by virtue of section 249 of the Act, reasonably and in accordance with the settled legal principles enabling condonatioin of delay in filing of statutory appeals. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee without refuting the facts stated by the assessee in a affidavit explaining the delay. 5. That on facts and circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior to said substation, CPC TDS had no authority to charge the fees undere section 234E of the Act while issuing intimation under section 200A for TDS return filed for the period before 01.06.2015 and henceforth levy of fees u/s 234E in the case is without jurisdiction. 10. That both the lower authorities have failed to note that the insertion of clause (c) to (f) of section 200A(1) of the Act is prospective in nature. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter to amend the above ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. Following common ground of appeal nos. 1 to 6 and 7 to 10 have been raised in all the appeals. Ground no. 8 has been raised for ITA Nos. 26 to 30/Asr.2021. 4. From perusal of the above grounds we fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n filing the appeal. (2) Appeals for the quarterly return of financial year 2013-14 raised in ITA Nos. 26 to 30/Asr/2021 deserves to be allowed as the order u/s 200(A) were time barred by limitation. (3) Fee u/s 234E levied for delay in quarterly returns filed for financial 2014-15 in ITA Nos. 29 30/Asr/2021 deserves to be deleted as return were processed before the amendment brought in by the Finance Act in section 200(A) effective from 1st June, 2015 enabling the Assessing Officer to levy fee u/s 234E. 7. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supporting the order and for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival contention and persued the record placed before us and ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em on due dates and also filing the TDS returns incorporating all the details of the deductee including his name, address, PAN, amount of TDS, tax deducted etc. In the instant case also there is no dispute to the fact that the assessee has deducted and deposited TDS and has also filed his quarterly returns. The delay caused in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is solely on account of the employee s efficiency and ignorance of the regular changing of TDS system of filing the return and receiving of orders through emails and other modes. There seems to be no malafide intention of the assessee to make delay in filing the appeal. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vijaya Bali Babu Rao Patil v. Santaram Baburac Patil [200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is filed, was 31.03.2014, 31.03.2016, and 31.03.2016. However, the date of passing of the order u/s 200(A) for the alleged three Quarters is 29.08.2016, 05.12.2016 and 04.12.2016. Since there is no dispute to the facts mentioned hereinabove, it is crystal clear that all these three orders passed on 29.08.2016, 05.12.2016 and 04.12.2016 are time barred by limitation. We therefore find merit in the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and hold that the levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act at ₹ 18,400/- 42,000/- and 6820/- challenged before us in ITA Nos. 26 to 28/Asr/2021 deserves to be deleted as the order passed u/s 200(A) levying such fees are time barred by limitation and deserves to be quashed. Thus the assessee s appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
