INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS) CUTTACK, CUTTACK vs. DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETY SERVICES, CUTTACK

Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. None represented on behalf of the assessee.

At the time of hearing, ld Sr. D.R. placed before us the questionnaire sent by him to the ld CIT(TDS) and the reply there from, which reads as follows:

“ P a g e 2 | 6 Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Sovesh Chandra Mohanty) Addl.CIT(ITAT)-1,Cuttack P a g e 3 | 6

It was the submission that the orders of ld CIT(A) granting relief to the assessee were perverse.

We have considered the submissions of ld Sr. DR. as also perused the orders of ld CIT(A). A perusal of the orders of ld CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld CIT(A) has considered the primary issue as to whether the levy of late fees is permissible under section 234E for three quarters of Financial P a g e 4 | 6 year 2012-13 and two quarters for Financial year 2014-15, especially in view of the fact that the intimation u/s.200A brought in statute w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Section 234E of the Act by itself cannot make computation without the provisions of section 200A of the Act, when the empowering section came into effect only w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Thus, the enabling provision came into effect only w.e.f. 1.6.2015, obviously, 234E would be leviable only from the time the enabling section came into effect. This being so, as also after noticing that the ld CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of TB and ID Hospital vs ITO- TDS(1) dated 27.8.2018 as also the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi & Ors vs Union of India (2016 (9) TMI 964 and also followed the judicial discipline, we find no error in the orders of ld CIT(A) to interfere in respect of three quarters of F.Y. 2012-13 and two quarter of F.Y. 2014-15.

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed.