The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed re-adjudication as late fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act 1961, was without giving opportunity for submitting reasons for delay in filing appeal.
This appeal is filed by assessee, Halo Technologies and Training Pvt. Ltd for dismissing appeal preferred by the Assessee against the intimation issued under Section 200A and Section 154 of the Income Tax Act for the Financial Year 2012-13 levying late fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act.
Varsha Nanwani, on behalf of the assessee submitted that the appeal preferred by the appellant had been dismissed by the CIT(A) on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation and not maintainable without confronting the Appellant and without granting the Appellant an opportunity of being heard.
He submitted that the Appellant had filed various rectification applications and would have been able to explain the reason for delay in filing the appeal in case the Appellant was confronted with the same. However, no such opportunity was granted by the CIT(A) and
The Appellant had a good case on merits since the Assessing Officer did not have the power to levy late fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act at the relevant time.
P.D. Chogule, on behalf of the revenue, supported the order passed by the CIT(A) pointing out that there was a delay of 981 days of filing the appeal. However, no reason for such delay pointed out in Form No. 35 or and the submission filed by the Appellant before CIT(A).
The two-member Bench of Om Prakash Kant, (Accountant Member) and Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member noted that the appeal was instituted on 05/07/2019 and clearly, there was a delay in filing the appeal. On perusal of the order passed by the CIT(A), it appeared that the Appellant was not given an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal or make submission on maintainability thereof.
Accordingly, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to its original number before the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh after giving the Appellant an opportunity of being heard. The Appellant was directed to file affidavit before the CIT(A) explaining the circumstances leading to the filing of appeal before CIT(A) who shall be at liberty to also decide the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) after giving opportunity to appellant.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
