PASCHION RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , GHAZIABAD

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘the CIT(A) in short), National Faceless
Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 20.12.2024 for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the present case, penalty of Rs.54,400/- was levied u/s 234E of the Act. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) though had condoned the delay in filing the appeal, however, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by ignoring the fact that under identical circumstances late fee penalty levied for various other quarters of the year under appeal were deleted by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated
28.12.2024. The copies of said orders are placed on record. He further submits that by following rule of consistency the penalty levied for the quarter for this quarter also deserves to be deleted. On merits, it is submitted that the provisions for levy of penalty u/s 234E was inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and the quarter under appeal is much prior to that thus the said provisions are Assessee by CA Rupinder Shah
Department by Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR
Date of hearing
24.06.2025
Date of pronouncement
24.06.2025

2 IT No.1940/Del/2025
4. Heard both the parties, it is seen that the appellant has filed TDS return delayed and, therefore, the AO has imposed levy late fee penalty u/s 234E of the Act. The said enabling sub-clause (c) was inserted in section 200A(1) w.e.f.
01.06.2015 and, therefore, any delay in filing the quarterly return of TDS prior to that date, question of imposing of late fee for such delay in filing of statements of TDS is not attracted. This view is supported by the judgment of various hon’ble High courts and Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal. Looking to these facts and also considering the fact that in assessee’s own case for other quarters of the impugned year, the late fee penalty u/s 234E was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, by following the rule of consistency, we find that the late fee penalty levied for this quarter is not maintainable. It is also seen that late fee penalty is related to the quarter prior to 01.06.2015 when the provisions of section 200A(1)(c) was not introduced. Accordingly, the late fee penalty of Rs. 54,400/- is not maintainable even on merits accordingly the same is hereby deleted. All the ground of appeal taken by the assessee are allowed.