Infinio Techsole (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Summary: The Hyderabad ITAT dealt with three appeals filed by Infinio Techsole (India) Pvt. Ltd. concerning AY 2013-14, Quarters 2 to 4. The appeals arose from separate orders dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Addl/JCIT(A), Raipur. Since identical facts and issues were involved, the Tribunal heard the three matters together and disposed of them through a consolidated order. The underlying proceedings related to three separate orders dated 04.08.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 read with section 200A in connection with quarterly TDS statements in Form No.26Q.
The grounds reproduced from ITA No.593/Hyd/2026 show that the assessee challenged, among other matters, late filing fee of Rs.30,824 under section 234E for delayed furnishing of the TDS return and interest of Rs.25,256 under section 220(2) for non-payment of the late filing fee. It also challenged the jurisdiction and validity of the orders under section 154 read with section 200A and alleged violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal, however, did not adjudicate any of these substantive grounds.
The immediate controversy before the Tribunal concerned the delay in filing the first appeals. The Addl/JCIT(A) had noticed that no affidavit had been filed in support of the petitions seeking condonation of delay and, on that basis, declined to condone the delay and dismissed all three appeals in limine without deciding the issues on merits. Before the Tribunal, the assessee produced duly sworn affidavits explaining the reasons for the delay and requested that, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay be considered and the appeals adjudicated on merits. The Departmental Representative relied upon the appellate orders.
The Tribunal recorded that dismissal of all three appeals was solely attributable to the absence of supporting affidavits before the Addl/JCIT(A). Since affidavits explaining the delay had now been placed on record and an effective opportunity to pursue the statutory appellate remedy was considered appropriate, the Tribunal set aside all three impugned appellate orders and restored the matters to the Addl/JCIT(A). The appellate authority was directed first to consider the affidavits and adjudicate the applications for condonation of delay in accordance with law. If the delay is condoned, the appeals must thereafter be decided on merits by a speaking order after adequate opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to cooperate fully and furnish necessary documents. All three appeals were accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not itself condone the delay or decide the merits of the section 234E, section 200A or section 220(2) disputes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
These appeals are filed by M/s. Infinio Techsole (India) Pvt. Ltd., (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Addl/JCIT(A), Raipur (“Ld. Addl/JCIT”) all dated 11.12.2025 for the A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2 to 4). Since identical facts and issues are involved in all the three appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
2. For the sake of brevity, we are only reproducing the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.593/Hyd/2026:
Following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other:
1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the order u/s. 250 of the Act dated 11.12.2025 dismissing the appeal of the appellant in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the AO u/s 154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act which is bad and invalid in the eyes of law.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act is without jurisdiction and hence invalid and void ab initio.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the order in violation of principles of natural Justice.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging late filing fees of Rs. 30,824/- u/s. 234E of the Act on account of delay in furnishing of TDS return.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in charging interest u/s. 220(2) of the Act amounting to Rs. 25,256/- on account of non-payment of late filing fee u/s. 234E of the Act.
6. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.
3. The brief facts in all these three appeals are that the assessee had filed appeals before the Ld. Addl/JCIT against three separate orders passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 154 read with section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), all dated 04.08.2023, relating to processing of quarterly TDS statements in Form No. 26Q for Quarters 2 to 4 of the financial year relevant to Assessment Year 2013-14. However, there was a delay in filing all the three appeals before the Ld. Addl/JCIT. The Ld. Addl/JCIT, noticing that the assessee had not filed any affidavit in support of the petition seeking condonation of delay, declined to condone the delay and accordingly dismissed all the three appeals in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits.
4. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. Addl/JCIT, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the Ld. Addl/JCIT dismissed the appeals solely on the ground that the assessee had not filed affidavits in support of the petitions seeking condonation of delay before him. He submitted that the assessee has now filed duly sworn affidavits explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. Addl/JCIT in all the three cases. It was therefore contended that, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing these appeals before the Ld. Addl/JCIT may be condoned and the appeals of the assessee may be adjudicated on merits.
5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied upon the orders of the Ld. Addl/JCIT.
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the Ld. Addl/JCIT dismissed all the three appeals only on the ground that the assessee had failed to file affidavits in support of the petitions seeking condonation of delay. Before us, the assessee has placed on record affidavits explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. Addl/JCIT in all the three cases. Considering the fact that the affidavits explaining the delay are now available on record and in order to provide the assessee with an effective opportunity of pursuing the statutory remedy of appeal, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. Addl/JCIT. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. Addl/JCIT in all the three appeals and restore the matters to his file with a direction to first consider the affidavits filed by the assessee and adjudicate the applications seeking condonation of delay in accordance with law. In the event the delay is condoned, the Ld. Addl/JCIT shall proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits by passing a speaking order in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings and file all necessary documents as may be called for by the Ld. Addl/JCIT.
7. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th July, 2026.
