, , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण इंदौर (cid:586)ायपीठ इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.296/Ind/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Amey Jain, ITO 1(1), 127, Anurag Nagar BH Indore Press Complex, /

बनाम Vijay Nagar, Vs.

Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

PAN: AQBPJ1217D Assessee by Shri Harsh Choukse & Shri Kunal Agrawal, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 30.05.2022 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of intimation dated 29.03.2019 passed by learned ACIT, TDS, CPC, Ghaziabad [“AO”] u/s 200A of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Financial Year 2018-19 [Quarter-2, Form No. 26QB] relevant to Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2019-20, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:

“Ground 1) That the learned AO erred in levying late fees u/ s 234E and charging Interest u/ s 201 without considering the fact that the appellant has already filled form 26QB along with tax paid within due date while late fees has been imposed on second form 26QB filled mistakenly on similar transaction.

Ground 2. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal, failing to acknowledge that the second filing of Form 26QB was a resultofinadvertenterrorand thatthe tax was duly paid within the prescribed time in the initial filing, thereby rendering the late fees and interestlevied by the AO is unjustified.”

2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 965 days and therefore time-barred. The assessee has filed an application/ affidavit for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference:

3. The averments made by assessee in above application, which are self- explanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed and the Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection if the bench condones delay and accordingly left it to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause”for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.

4. Ld. AR for assessee explained following facts of case:

(i) The assessee-individual is an NRI.

(ii) On 09.05.2018, the assessee purchased a property for Rs.

53,43,000/- from R.R. Jain Infra (PAN: AAQFR9972C). The copy of registered purchase-deed is filed.

(iii) On 11.05.2018, the assessee deposited TDS of Rs. 53,430/- [1% of purchase consideration of Rs. 53,43,000/-] and filed Form No. 26QB u/s 194-IA of the Act to Income-tax Department. Copies of Form No.

26QB & Form No. 26AS are placed in Paper-Book.

(iv) Yet on 26.03.2019, due to ignorance and mistakenly, the assessee re-

deposited TDS of 53,430/- [Rs. 100/- + Rs. 53,330/-] and re-filed Form No. 26QB on the same transaction. Copies of Form No. 26QB &

Form No. 26AS are placed in Paper-Book.

(v) The Ld. AO has processed the Form No. 26QB re-filed by assessee on

26.03.2019 and generated intimation dated 29.03.2019 u/s 200A, creating a demand of Rs. 8,794.50 o