SHREE JAIN MEDICAL RELIEF TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

Since identical facts and issues are involved in all these sixteen appeals, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts relevant for the in the ITA No.2929/CHNY/2026 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 are stated herein:

The Assessee in ITA No.2925/CHNY/2026 raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld AO erred in levying late filing fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Trust incorporated under the provisions of Trust Act. It is formed with charitable objects. The appellant trust filed the quarterly returns of TDS during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. The appellant filed quarterly returns in Form 24Q/26Q belatedly on 11.12.2013. The said returns were processed u/s.200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by CPC accepting the returns filed by the appellant. However, subsequently, CPC rectified the intimation vide order dated 08.02.2025 levying late fee of Rs.31,600/- u/s.234E of the Act and also demanded interest u/s.220(2) of Rs.42,344/-.

Being aggrieved by the said order passed u/s.154 of the Act, appellant had preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) contending that the late fee u/s.234E of the Act cannot be levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 as the amendment to the provisions of section 200A(1)(c) was brought in by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 placing on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd vs. UOI & Ors [2022] 440 ITR 26 (Ker) has confirmed the non-imposition of fee for the period prior to 01.06.2015. Similar view has been taken in JIJI Varghese vs. ITO [TDS] [2022] 443 ITR 267 (Ker). Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India, Writ Appeal Nos.2663-2674/2015(T-IT) dated 26.08.2016 and also placed reliance decisions of several co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal. However, the ld.CIT(A) placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani Vs. Union of India [20174] 83 taxmann.com 137 (Guj) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia Vs. Union of India [2015] 54 taxmann.com 200 (Bombay) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan [2015] 63 taxmann.com 243 (Rajasthan) confirmed the levy of late fee by holding that the machinery provision u/s.200A cannot govern a charging provision u/s.234E of the Act.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 244 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of the fact that the ld.CIT(A) granted relief in one appeal involving identical issue in assessee’s own case, therefore, the appellant had filed petition u/s.154 before the ld.CIT(A) under the bonafide belief that the ld.CIT(A) would rectify order under the provisions of 154 of the Act. However, the ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on 28.04.2026 and the appeal was filed within a period of 60 days from the date of passing rectification order by the ld.CIT(A). Thus, it was submitted that the delay had occurred on account of the fact that the appellant was under bonafide belief that the ld.CIT(A) would allow application u/s.154 of the Act and it was pursuing alternative remedy u/s.154 before the ld.CIT(A) under a bonafide belief.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The averments made in the affidavit remain uncontroverted by Learned CIT-DR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao AIR 1973 SC 627, held that an uncontroverted affidavit shall be taken as an affidavit on fact. In the light of this legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the delay had occurred in filing the appeal on account of Bonafide reasons and the explanation cannot be brushed aside pursuing alterative remedy would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay, hence, the delay is condoned and we admit the appeal for adjudication on merit.

The issue in the present appeal relates to levy of late filing of fee u/s.234E for belated filing of quarterly returns of TDS for the period prior to 01.06.2015. The issue stands covered in favour of assessee by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of True Blue Voice India Vs. CCIT-TDS [2024] 158 taxmann.com 67 (Madras) 472 ITR 480 wherein it was held as under : “17. In view of the above, it is made clear that the respondent had had imposed the late fee only under Section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012- 2013, 2013-2014, 2014 2015. However, Section 200A(1) (c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under Section 200A of the Act, when they have processed the application for TDS under Section 200A, no late fee can be imposed under Section 234E. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court feels that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.."

Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd vs. UOI & Ors. Thus, the Jurisdictional High Court took a view that late fee u/s.234E of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied for belated filing of quarterly returns for the period prior to 01.06.2015, the decision relied upon by the ld.CIT(A) has no application to the facts of the case, in as much as, those decisions relates to the constitutional validity of provisions of section 234E of the Income Tax Act which is not an issue before us. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the late fee of Rs.31,600/- levied u/s.234E and consequential interest levied u/s.220(2) of the Act.

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

Since the facts and issues involved in the above captioned appeal is identical, therefore, our decision in ITA No.2925/CHNY/2026 shall apply mutatis mutandis to all these appeals of the assessee i.e. ITA Nos.2926 to 2940/CHNY/2026 also. Accordingly, grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are allowed.

To sum up, all appeals filed by the Assessee i.e. in ITA No.2925/CHNY/2026 to ITA No.2940/CHNY/2026 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th July, 2026.