INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), CUTTACK vs. DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY VETY SERVICES, CUTTACK
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHANMANISH AGARWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.420 to 422/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA Nos.423 to 424/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Income Tax Officer (TDS), Vs. Directorate Directorate of of Animal Animal Aayakar Aayakar Bhawan, Bhawan, Shelter Shelter Husbandry Husbandry and and Vety Vety Square, Cuttack Square, Cuttack Services, , Mangalabag, Mangalabag, Buxibazar, Cuttack Buxibazar, Cuttack PAN/TAN No. No.BBNDO 0071 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 29/10/20 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench These are These are appeals filed by the revenue against the separate separate orders of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi all dated 16.8.2024 in Appeal No. Appeal No. NFAC/2011- 12/10203855, NFAC/2011-12/10203856, NFAC/2011- 12/10203854,NFAC/2011 NFAC/2011-12/10203857,NFAC/2013-14/10203861 14/10203861 for three quarters of Financial year 2013 and of Financial year 2013 and two quarters of financial year 2014 of financial year 2014- 15, respectively against levy of late fees u/s 15, respectively against levy of late fees u/s.234E of the Act. .234E of the Act.
P a g e 1 | 6
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. 5. 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.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 29/10/2024.
Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 29/10/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS)
P a g e 5 | 6
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : 2. The Respondent: 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy//
By order
Sr.Pvt.Secretary ITAT, Cuttack
P a g e 6 | 6
