Case Law Details
Motor Magic Auto Zone Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Considering the precedents set by the Honorable High Court and the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, it has been established that the imposition of late filing fees under Section 234E before the period of 01.06.2015 is not valid. Therefore, the ITAT Delhi in the case of Motor Magic Auto Zone Vs ACIT has instructed the Assessing Officer (AO) to delete the same.
ITAT condone delay of 29 days in appeal filing due to counsel’s lapse
The appeals for condonation of a 29-day delay were contested by the assessee, who attributed the delay to their legal counsel’s lapses and omissions.
Despite opposition from the Senior DR, ITAT accepted the assessee’s contention that the delay was due to the counsel’s lapse and not the fault of the assessee. It’s important to note the reliance on a prior High Court judgment where similar lapses on the counsel’s part were seen as reasonable grounds for delay.
It also underlines that lapses and omissions by legal counsel, which are beyond the control of the assessee, can be considered as reasonable grounds for delay in filing.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 05.08.2022 of the Ld. NFAC, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15.
2. When the appeals were called for hearing neither the assessee nor its authorise representative appear nor any adjournment application has been filed despite due service of notice. On perusal of the record we are of the view that these appeals can be adjudicated in absence of appellant after hearing the arguments of learned Senior DR and ex-parte qua assessee. Hence we proceed to adjudicate the appeals.
Condonation of delay of 29 days
3. The assessee has filed an application in both the appeals seeking condonation of delay of 31 days and as per report of registry there was delay of 29 days in both the appeals. The ld. AR of assessee placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the case of Onkar Chandra Pankaj Kumar vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in this judgment held that the obligation of the party is to select his advocate brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and trust the learned advocate to do the rest of things. The ld. AR has submitted that the appellant has handed over all the papers and delay was caused by the advocate and the assessee was not at fault in not filing appeal within due time. In the applications the it is prayed that delay may kindly be condoned keeping in view reasonable cause shown by the assessee. The learned Senior DR strongly opposed to the condonation of delay.
4. On careful consideration of above we find that the delay of 29/31 days has been caused due to lapses and omissions on the part of counsel of assessee and cause shown by the assessee is a reasonable cause beyond control of the assessee. Therefore delay of 29/31 days in filing both the appeals is condoned and appeals are admitted for adjudication.
5. From the grounds of appeal it is apparent that the sole issue in both the appeals is that the AO has erred in law and on facts in positing the late fee u/s. 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the default prior to 01.06.2015.
6. The appellant in the grounds has stated that the ld. CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 has allowed appeal of the assessee under identical facts and circumstances and for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 noted the identical facts but in the last sentence concluded that the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Therefore it is prayed that the appeals of the assessee may kindly be allowed deleting the late fee u/s. 234E of the Act.
7. The ld. Senior DR supported the orders of the authorities below. However, in all fairness, he did not controvert that in para 6 the learned First Appellate Authority has noted facts and findings in favour of the assessee but in the last sentence of said para he concluded that ground of appeal raised by the appellant is dismissed.
8. On careful consideration of above factual position conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 and conclusion drawn for present AY 2013-14 & 2014-15, we are of the considered view that the late filing fees u/s. 234E relating to appeals for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 also have identical and similar facts with the AY 2015-16. The AO levied late filing fees for both the years under intimation u/s. 200A of the Act, both dated 23.12.2015 for quarter 3 of both the said assessment years with pertains to the period prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore in view of various decisions of Hon’ble High Court and Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal late filing fee u/s. 234E prior to the period from 01.06.2015 is not leviable hence we direct the AO to delete the same. Accordingly, grievances of assessee in both the appeals are allowed.
9. In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22.05.2023.
