आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ (cid:586)ायपीठ, चे(cid:580)ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ,‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:373)ी मनु कु मार िग(cid:303)र ,(cid:586)ाियक सद(cid:735) एवं (cid:373)ी एस .आर .रघुनाथा, लेखा सद(cid:735) के सम(cid:407)

BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलस.ं /ITA No.540/CHNY/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91)/ Assessment Year: 2013-14)

M/s. Our Lady of Lourdes Boys Vs The Income Tax Officer, High School, TDS Ward, U/o LE Conseil D Administration Del Puducherry.

Archidiocese De Pondicherry, Villainur, Puducherry – 605 110.

PAN : AAAAL 0070E (अपीलाथ(cid:568)/Appellant) ((cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:568) क(cid:551) ओर स/े Appellant by : None (cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) क(cid:551) ओर स/े Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/Date of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER S R RAGHUNATHA, AM:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC)

Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated 17.01.2025 for Assessment Year 2013-14.

2. The assessee is a Government aided Minority School and liable to deduct TDS as per the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) and filed its quarterly E TDS returns belatedly for 3^rd and 4^th quarter for the financial year 2013-14. An order dated 22.03.2024 was passed by the TDS-CPC levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act.

3. Aggrieved by the order of TDS - CPC the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 3,240 days. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay of 3,240 days for want of sufficient cause and confirmed the order of the TDS – CPC. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is before us.

4. The ld. DR drew our attention to the delay of 3,240 days in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) and pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.

5. At the outset we have observed that the assessee has filed the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 3,240 days and the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without condoning the huge delay for want of sufficient cause and confirmed the order of the CPC TDS. Since, the assessee has not filed any other further reasons for explaining the delay, we are of the considered view that the there is no reason to interfere with the order of passed by the ld.CIT(A).

Thus, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th April, 2025 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/-

(मनु कु मार िग(cid:303)र) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा)

(MANU KUMAR GIRI) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA)

(cid:586)ाियक सद(cid:735)/Judicial Member लेखा सद(cid:735)/Accountant Member चÛे नई/Chennai, (cid:465)दनांक/Date: 25.04.2025 आदेश क(cid:551) (cid:292)(cid:467)त(cid:871)ल(cid:874)प अ(cid:274)े(cid:874)षत/Copy to:

1. अपीलाथ(cid:568)/Appellant 2. (cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/Respondent

3. आयकर आयÈु त/CIT, Chennai

4. (cid:874)वभागीय (cid:292)(cid:467)त(cid:467)न(cid:876)ध/DR

5. गाड (cid:91)फाईल/GF.