TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... op, Chennai [ 2020 (10) TMI 1326 - ITAT CHENNAI] cited by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. It is also noticed that the amendment made to U/s. 200A of the Act w.e.f 01/06/2015 is held to be prospective in nature and hence no late fee can be levied U/s. 234E of the Act while processing the TDS returns filed prior to 01/06/2015. Further, on perusal of the said order of the ITAT, Chennai Bench we find that under the similar set of facts and circumstances, after careful consideration, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the First Appellate Authority and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issues on merits. We hereby condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2021 are extracted herein below for the sake of reference: 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal against the order U/s. 200A of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in respect of quarterly statements relating to the period prior to 1/6/2015k there was no provision in the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowering the levy of interest U/s. 234E of the Act in the intimation U/s. 200A of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits and ought to have deleted the late filing fee of Rs. 1,10,994/- charged U/s. 234E of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) oug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee by holding that the explanation given by the assessee for late filing of the appeal before the First Appellate Authority does not constitute sufficient cause . To support his view, the Ld. CIT (A) relied on various decisions which find a place in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for the AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 2015-16 raising the grounds mentioned herein above. 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, with regard to levy of late filing fee U/s. 234E of the Act and belated filing of the TDS returns, submitted that various High Courts and the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal have taken a stand that the amendment made to U/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06/2015 is held to be prospective in nature and hence no late fee can be levied U/s. 234E of the Act while processing the TDS returns filed prior to 01/06/2015. Further, on perusal of the said order of the ITAT, Chennai Bench we find that under the similar set of facts and circumstances, after careful consideration, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the First Appellate Authority and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issues on merits. For the sake of reference, the relevant portion from the order of the Tribunal dated 26/10/2020 is extracted herein below: 4. We have heard Learned Counsels for both sides and perused material available on record along with the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s duty of the assessee to file appeal within due date. In case, the appeal is not filed within due date prescribed under the Act, then it is for the assessee to give sufficient reasons which prevented from filing of appeal within due date, but the reasons given by the assessee shall come within the expression sufficient cause‟. Various Courts and Tribunals have explained the term sufficient cause . As per the settled principle a case that arguable / favourable points / contention on merits should not be shut out on the presumption of limitation, leading to such a case being thrown out at the threshold itself in limine. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
