9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.07.2022 for the relevant Assessment Years 2014 - 2015 and 2015 - 2016. Since the facts in all these six appeals are identical and the issues common, for the sake of convenience, these six appeals are heard together and disposed off by this consolidated order. 2. The Assessee has more or less raised various common grounds in all these six appeals and therefore, for the sake of brevity, the grounds that are raised in the appeal filed by the Assessee in I.T.A. No.692/Chny/2022 are reproduced as under: "1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous as the same is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. 2.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal filed against the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the same is to be deleted as it falls outside the scope of Section 154(1) of the Act and runs contrary to Section 154(3) of the Act." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee had filed the TDS Quarterly statement of Form 24Q for the Quarter-2 [Q2] of the Financial Year 2013 - 2014 on 28.03.2015 which was due to be filed on 15.10.2013 with a delay of 529 days. The Assessee had also filed a correction statement on 19.08.2021 and an intimation u/s.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 19.08.2021 that was received by the Assessee. The Assessing Officer TDS(CPC) while processing the quarterly statement had levied late fee u/s.234E of the Act for 529 days for the delay in filing of the quarterly TDS statement. 4. Aggrieved, the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the issues involved in this appeal on merits. 6. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand had supported the appellate order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and submitted that the Assessee ought to have filed the appeal against the original order issued u/s.200A of the Act, levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act. However, the Assessee preferred an appeal against the order passed u/s.154 of the Act and challenged the levy of late fee without appreciating the fact that the scope of provision of Section 154 is very limited in as much as the Assessee can question the validity of the order. However, he cannot question the late fee levied in the order passed u/s.200A of the Act. 7. We have heard both the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the first Appellate Authority. Therefore, in our considered view, the Commissioner of Income Tax (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 Commissioner of Income Tax (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, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
