Without enquiring when the order was actually served, dismissing the appeal for inordinate delay was not justified – ITAT
In a recent judgment, ITAT Lucknow has held that without enquiring into, when assessee was actually served with the order, dismissing the appeal for inordinate delay was not justified.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4610 (2025) (06) abcaus.in ITAT
Important Case Laws relied upon by Parties:
Collector of Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471
In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) NFAC, dismissing the belated appeal of the assessee on the grounds that there was no sufficient cause for the condonation of delay and therefore the appeal was not maintainable.
The assessee was a college. It filed TDS return for the quarter four of F.Y. 2012-13 in Form No. 24Q which was processed levying late filing fee under section 234E. Subsequently, assessee also filed a correction statement but the TDS CPC, on processing of the said correction statement reiterated the late filing fee and also levied interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
The assesssee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC submitted that all TDS amounts had been credited to Income Tax Department through Challan within the prescribed period. However, the TDS CPC had levied late filing fee and interest upon the assessee.
It was submitted that there were only 1-4 employee and great workload upon that employee and there was no proper knowledge of filing of TDS return in form 24Q. It was submitted that the assessee College was located at an interior district in Uttar Pradesh in which there was no TIN facilitation centre nor any senior tax consultant sitting there. There was also no permanent connectivity of internet facilities in the college and most of the work was done manually.
It was submitted that due to these circumstances, timely TDS return could not be filed within the prescribed period. It was submitted that the only outstanding dues were on account of this late filing fee and interest thereon and CBDT had issued several circulars from time to time for waiver of late filing levy. Therefore, it was submitted that the late filing fee and the interest may be waived.
The CIT(A) noted that as per Form No.35, the order under section 201 of the Act had been passed on in 2014 and the intimation order was served in January 2020, whereas the appeal was filed in December 2020, which was beyond the statutory time limit of 30days as per section 249(2)(C). However, the asseseee had filed appeal with a delay of more than six years
The CIT(A) noted that the appeal could only be admitted if the assessee showed sufficient cause for the delay.
The assessee submitted that its counsel had corrected the demand in the Traces and was under the bona fide belief that the correction had already been accepted in view of CBDT Circulars issued from time to time for waiver of late filing levy. But when the assessee’s counsel downloaded the default summary from traces website in December 2020 only when it was found that in spite of CBDT Circulars, the TDS CPC could not waive the levy of late filing of TDS returns in Form 26Q. Thus, there was no deliberate intention of not filing the appeal in time, the delay in filing the appeal may please be condoned.
The CIT(A) considered the matter in the light of this explanation and held that this was a case of inordinate delay. He pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had made a distinction between delays that were trivial and delays where extraordinarily large delays had occurred. The Court had held that while cases of trivial delays had to be liberally considered, cases of inordinate delays had to be approached cautiously. Relying upon judgment, the CIT(A) held that the assessee did not have any sufficient cause in terms of section 249(3) of the Act for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable and did not pronounce decision on the matter on its merits.
The Tribunal observed that in the Form No.35 filed by the assessee it claimed that the order of 2014, was only received by it in 2020. The CIT(A) had not enquired into this claim of the assessee but has classified the case as one of inordinate delay on account of the large hiatus in the passing of the order under section 200A and the date of filing the appeal.
The Tribunal opined that without enquiring into, when or whether the assessee was actually served with the order, it was not proper to hold the period of delay as six years or to hold that there was inordinate delay.
The Tribunal further observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had condoned a delay of 1754 days on the grounds that the Revenue could not refute the contention of the assessee, that it was not aware about the order.
Thus, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Tribunal held that in absence of any inquiry to dispose the assessee’s claim that it was not aware about the order the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the case of the assessee in limine.
The Tribunal also opined that as the assessee was located in a remote area where there was no TIN facilitation center nor any tax consultant sitting there to assist it in the preparation of its returns or appeals and there is no permanent connectivity of internet facilities in the office of the assessee as most of its work done manually. Therefore, it was plausible that the assessee was entirely dependent on the counsel who had filed the correction statement on its behalf and this would explain the delay in filing the appeal even after processing of the correction statement.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to consider the arguments of the assessee on their merits and to decide the case.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- UCO Bank Concurrent Auditor Online Empanelment for FY 2025-26
- Section 87A rebate available for short-term capital gains – ITAT
- Homebuyer entitled to possession if their name included in list of financial creditors
- GSTN Advisory to file pending returns before expiry of three years on 01.10.2025
- Insurance premium paid for partner of the firm held as allowable expenditure
