SAMARA CARPETS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHADOHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTERALISED PROCESSING CENTRE - TDS, VIASHALI GHAZIABAD, U.P.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5019/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14 AND ITA No.5020/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 AND ITA No.5021/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. ACIT, CPC TAX-TDS, SAMARA CARPETS PRIVATE LIMITED, TS CPC AAYAKAR AHIMANPUR, KHAMARIA BHAWAN, BHADOHI SECTOR-3, VAISHALI UTTAR PRADESH-221306 GHAZIABAD BHADOHI UTTAR PRADESH-201010 PAN: AAKCS3987K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Vivek Malhotra, AR Department by Sh. Balkishan Gopal, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 07.09.2026 Date of pronouncement 10.09.2026 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP : These assessee’s three appeals being ITA Nos.5019, 5020 & 5021/Del/2026, for assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2014- 15, arise against the separate orders of the Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders, all dated 05.12.2025, involving proceedings under section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. 2. At the threshold, it is noted that there is delay of 63 days in filing the appeals by the assessee in respect of assessment years 2013-14 & 2015-16. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, we are of the considered view that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeals, hence, the same is condoned and both the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. We note with the able assistance coming from both the sides that the assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA No. 5019/Del/2026 (A.Y. 2013-14) raises the following substantive grounds: 1. The NFAC erred in law and on facts in upholding the levy of late filing fee u/s. 234E for F.Y. 2013-14. The fee u/s. 234E could not have been levied through the mechanism of Section 200A prior to 01.06.2025. 2. The NFAC grievously erred in law in holding that the debatable nature of the issue made the Section 154 rectification application not maintainable. The NFAC contradicted itself by simultaneously deciding the merits of the levy against the appellant. 3. The NFAC erred in ignoring the overwhelming and binding body of judicial precedent – including rulings of the High Courts of Karnataka and Kerala – uniformly holding that fee u/s. 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to 1.6.2015. 4. The NFAC erred in law in confirming the interest levied u/s. 220(2) of the Act in the absence of valid demand, no interest is leviable. 5. The NFAC erred in relying upon the minority view of the Gujarat High Court and the Madras High Court while ignoring the majority view and the binding precedent of the Karnataka High Court and other High Courts which take the opposite view.

favour in very terms to delete the impugned late filing fee levied by both the learned lower authorities. This appeal is allowed. Same order to follow in the assessee’s remaining two appeals ITA Nos.5020 & 5021/Del/2026. 6. These assessee’s 03 appeals ITA Nos.5019, 5020 & 5021/Del/2026 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10.09.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

SRBhatnaggar Date: 10-9-2026 Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches