RAMESH CHANDANMAL GUNDECHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 17 days in filing of the appeals before this Tribunal in the case of Sancheti Onions Pvt. Ltd. Assessee has submitted an Affidavit explaining the delay. On due consideration of the Affidavit, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the

The only issue raised in these appeals is against the levy of fees u/s.234E for the quarters relating to Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.

Identical issue have been raised by assessee in all these appeals. We therefore proceed to dispose of these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

Brief facts common to these appeals are that TDS returns for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 corresponding to respective quarters captioned above were filed belatedly. The same were processed by Central Processing Cell (in short “CPC”) u/s.200A levying fee u/s.234E of the Act. Assessee preferred Rectification application u/s.154 of the Act levying fee u/s.234E of the Act. The assessee filed rectification applications u/s.154 of the Act for removal of late fee u/s.234E but failed to succeed. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal(s) before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC but failed to get any relief. Now the assessee is in appeal(s) before the Tribunal.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records placed before us. The solitary issue in this batch of appeals is against the levy of fee u/s.234E of the Act by CPC for delay in

We observe that the issue of levy of fee u/s.234E is no more res integra by virtue of several decisions rendered by this Tribunal on this very issue. It shows that the late fee u/s.234E has been imposed for the delay in furnishing the statements for quarters, in the returns processed u/s.200A of the Act prior to 01.06.2015. By Finance Act 2015 Clause-(c) to section 200A(1) was introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2015 empowering the authority concerned to levy fee under section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS statement under section 200A of the Act. Therefore, prior to 01.06.2015 there was no specific provision under section 200A of the Act for levy of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. Thus, taking note of the aforesaid factual position, different benches of the Tribunal consistently held that prior to 01.06.2015 provisions of section 200A of the Act did not contemplate levy of fee under section 234E of the Act. Therefore, it was held, even-though section 234E of the Act was in the statute prior to 01.06.2015, however, in absence of any enabling provision, no fee under section 234E of the Act can be levied for late filing of TDS statement for any period prior to 01.06.2015. The same view was expressed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Sanghvi & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Kar.). In the case of Emsons Exim Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO, ITA No.4406/Mum./2017 & Ors. dated 28th August 2019, by majority view it was held that levy of fee under section 234E of the Act cannot be made in respect of a period prior to

We find that the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal after considering the judicial pronouncements have been taking a consistent view that the amendment brought in Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 under Section 200A (clause (c)] of the Act is prospective in nature thereby empowering the Revenue authorities to charge fee u/s.234E of the Act only after 01.06.2015. In that view of the matter, Revenue authorities are empowered to impose such late fee u/s.234E only for the default committed after 01.06.2015 and not prior to that. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Olari Little Flower Kuries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others (2022) 440 ITR 26 (Kerala) has affirmed the non-imposition of fee for the period prior to 01.06.2015. Similar view has been taken in Jiji Varghese VS. ITO(TDS) & Ors. (2022) 443 ITR 267 (Ker) holding that no fee u/s.234E can be imposed for the periods of the respective A.Ys. prior to 1st June, 2015. Similar view was also taken by this Tribunal in the case of Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe Vs. ITO (TDS), Pune in ITA Nos.1286 to 1309/PUN/2023, dated 29.02.2024. Thus, it is seen that the issue raised in the these appeals is covered in favour of the assessee as the returns u/s.200A(c) were processed before 01.06.2015, details of which are given below :

Following the settled judicial precedents, we overturn the impugned orders and delete the late fee levied u/s.234E of the Act on this sole issue and allow the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in these three appeals.

In the result, the appeals of the respective assessee(s) are ALLOWED.