A G T ELECTRONICS LIMITED,COIMBATIORE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2606/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 August 2026AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for the period prior to 01.06.2015 was not legally sustainable due to the absence of the enabling provision under Section 200A. Therefore, the impugned action of the AO and CIT(A) was void.

What were the facts?

The assessee company filed TDS statements belatedly for FY 2012-13. The Assessing Officer levied a late filing fee under Section 234E, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the levy was not tenable as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect later.

What were the issues?

Whether late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for AY 2013-14 when the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) was not yet in effect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200A,Section 220(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 20.07.2026Pronounced: 20.08.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ADDL/JCIT (A) Agra, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)’), dated 09.03.2026 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2011-12 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

No.2606/Chny/2026 (AY 2013-14) A G T ELECTRONICS LIMITED :: 2 :: 2. The appellant is a company engaged in the business of civil construction. It filed the quarterly TDS statements for the Financial Year (FY) 2012–13 belatedly. While processing the TDS statements, the Assessing Officer levied late filing fee under Section 234E of the Act vide order dated 03.01.2014. The appellant inter-alia contended that the impugned levy under Section 234E was not legally tenable/sustainable, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) empowering such levy came into effect only from 01.06.2015 and hence not leviable for AY 2013-14. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the appellant's ibid contention, by order passed under Section 154 dated 18.08.2023, retained the demand of late filing fee under Section 234E and added consequential interest under Section 220(2) of the Act. The appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed vide impugned order dated 09.03.2026. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal by relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Derby Clothing Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO in ITA Nos. 309 to 316/Chny/2026, vide order dated 19.03.2026.

3.

According to the Ld. AR, Mr. S. Senthil Kumar (Erode), Advocate, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the levy of the late fee for the period prior to 01.06.2015 because there was no power vested in him by law to do so. Hence, according to the Ld. AR, the CPC erred in levying the late fee under Section 234E of the Act vide intimation dated 03.01.2014 which was erroneously later confirmed under Section 154 of the Act. Therefore, the

No.2606/Chny/2026 (AY 2013-14) A G T ELECTRONICS LIMITED :: 3 :: impugned action of the AO rejecting the rectification application filed by the assessee is ab initio void.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. DR, Mrs. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT, does not want us to interfere with the impugned action of the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

Having heard both the parties on the short point that there was no power vested in CPC/AO to levy late fee in the relevant FY, it is noted that the assessee had filed the TDS quarterly statements for FY 2012-13 belatedly, i.e., after the due date, and the assessee received the intimation order from the CPC levying the late filing fee under Section 234E of the Act vide intimation dated 03.01.2014. The assessee is noted to have filed rectification applications pointing out that, prior to 01.06.2015, there was no machinery provision for the computation of such fee, which was rejected. In this regard, we find the issue in hand is no longer res-integra. We find that this Tribunal had an occasion to examine the contention of assessee on similar issue in the case of Arety Sreenivasa Rao v. The ITO in ITA Nos. 169 and 170/Chny/2026 for AY 2013-14, vide order dated 08.04.2026, This Tribunal has allowed similar appeal filed by an assessee by observing as under:-

“2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee drew our attention to the impugned action of the CPC (TDS) dated 20.02.2025, passed u/s.200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) [for the 2nd & 3rd Quarter of AY 2013-14]; and submitted that the CPC without jurisdiction, has ordered u/s.234E, levy of late fees of ₹23,850/- & ₹14,900/- for the 2nd & 3rd Quarter of AY 2013-14 respectively, which action is therefore legally unsustainable. The Ld AR reminded us that Section 200A of the Act was not in the statute during the said assessment year, and it was introduced only with effect from 01.06.2015, hence the

No.2606/Chny/2026 (AY 2013-14) A G T ELECTRONICS LIMITED :: 4 :: CPC didn’t enjoy the power to levy of late fee for the relevant year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. And for such a proposition, he drew our attention to the binding decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Sri Rujula International in WP No.4307 of 2024 dated 12.09.2024, wherein similar issue had come up for consideration, and the same was answered in favour of the assessee by observing as under: 4. In the present case, the respondent had imposed the late fee only under Section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013- 2014. However, Section 200A of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years and it was introduced only with effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, in the absence of any provisions under Section 200A of the Act, the respondents ought not to have imposed late fee under Section 234E while processing the applications for TDS under Section 200A. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Demand Intimation Letters are liable to be set aside. 3. In the light of the Hon’ble Madras High Court’s order, the Ld.AR prayed that the action of the CPC levying late fees u/s.234E of the Act is void and therefore liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR opposed the plea of the assessee and doesn’t want us to interfere with the action of the Ld.CIT(A). 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record; we note that the issue raised before us is whether the late fees can be imposed u/s.234E of the Act while processing the statement of TDS u/s.200A of the 2nd & 3rd Quarter for the relevant assessment year 2013- 14. In this regard, we find that the issue is no longer res-integra and find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Sri Rujula International (supra) has answered it in favour of assessee by finding that Section 200A of the Act was inserted only with effect from 01.06.2015 and therefore, in the absence of any provisions under Section 200A of the Act for the relevant year, it was held that Income Tax Authorities ought not to have imposed late fee under Section 234E while processing the applications for TDS under Section 200A. Hence, the Hon’ble Court held that the impugned Demand Intimation Letters are liable to be set aside. 7. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned actions of the CPC(TDS) under Section 200A, levying late fees u/s.234E, of ₹23,850/- & ₹14,900/- for the 2nd & 3rd Quarter of AY 2013-14 is liable to be set aside and we order accordingly. 8. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.”

6.

Respectfully following the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal supra, and notice that the issue raised by the assessee is no longer res integra and find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, in the case of M/s. Sri Rujula

No.2606/Chny/2026 (AY 2013-14) A G T ELECTRONICS LIMITED :: 5 :: International (supra), has answered the question of law in favour of the assessee by holding that Section 200A of the Act was inserted only with effect from 01.06.2015 and, therefore, in the absence of any provision under Section 200A of the Act for the relevant year, the Income-tax Authorities ought not to have imposed the late fee under Section 234E while processing the TDS statements under Section 200A of the Act. Hence, the Hon'ble Court held that the impugned Demand/Intimation are liable to be set aside.

7.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned action of the CPC levying the late filing fee of ₹13,470 was ab initio void; and hence the impugned action of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the rectification application against the intimation action of CPC [levying such late fee under Section 234E] does not survive and is directed to be deleted.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on the 20th day of August, 2026, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (एबी टी. वक�) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 20th August, 2026. MM YASHVI Digitally signed by YASHVIR R SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.09.03 12:44:44 -07'00'

No.2606/Chny/2026 (AY 2013-14) A G T ELECTRONICS LIMITED :: 6 :: आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 234E

All 4,792 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234E →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →