Siddhartha Nautiyal ORDER
Waseem Ahmed, Member (A)
1. The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-2019.
2. At the outset, it was noticed that there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee for 145 days. It was submitted by the assessee in the affidavit that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), dated 07/06/2022 was delivered in spam folder of e-mail. Therefore, the assessee could not come to know about the order of the ld. CIT(A). As such, it was realized by the assessee that when the recovery proceedings against the outstanding demand were initiated by the revenue. Thereafter, the assessee immediately approached the tax consultant to file the appeal before the Tribunal which was finally done dated 29/12/2022. However, in this process a delay of 145 days has occurred inadvertently. Thus, it was prayed by the assessee for condonation of delay.
3. On the contrary, the Ld. DR did not raise any serious objection after considering the reason for filing the appeal with the delay of 145 days and left the issue at the discretion of the Bench. Considering the above stated facts and the length of the delay, we deem it fit to condone. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit.
4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.
1. The order passed by the AO and confirmed by CIT (A) is bad in law and required to be quashed.
2. Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 2295051/-by invoking section 40(a)(ia)of the Act ignoring fact that delayed payment charges would not partake character of interest u/s.194A and accordingly section 40(a)(ia).
3. Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered that payee JM Financial Services Ltd. Has included payment by assessee in their income and accordingly as per second proviso to section 50(a)(ia),no disallowance has been called for.
4. Ld.CIT(A) failed to grant opportunity of personal hearing and thus violated principle of natural just ice and accordingly order passed by him required to be set aside.
5. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 270A is justified.
6. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO for Rs. 22,95,051 on account of non-deduction of TDS u/s 194A r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
7. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has claimed expense for Rs. 66,39,497/-and Rs. 10,10,675/-representing the delayed payment charges and interest payable. As per the AO, the assessee failed to deduct the TDS under the provisions of section