MRS. VAISHALI NILESH CHOPDA,AHILYANAGAR vs. ACIT TDS CIRCLE, NASHIK

आदेश /ORDER

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : These are three appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AYs. 2013-14, 2013-14 and 2015-16, respectively on 26.12.2015.

The facts mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) are as under :

ITA Nos.829, 830 & 831/PUN/2026

“2. In the present case, it is evident that the appellant has defaulted by filing e- TDS statements belatedly. The CPC-TDS has processed the said return 26Q, Q2 FY 2012-13 and passed order u/s 154 r.w.s. 200A/206CB of the Income Tax Act, on 28- 03-2025 raising a levy for late filing u/s 234E of the Act. Aggrieved by the action of the AO, the appellant has filed the present appeal against the order u/s 154 rws 200A/206CB of the Act, dated 28-03- 2025.”

4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) held in para 4.4 which is as under : “4.4 In this case, the relevant period under dispute is FY 2012-13 which is prior to 1-6-2015. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble' Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani 83 taxmann.com 137, It is held that the intimation levying late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act for Q4 of the FY 2012-13 is valid. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant in this regard are dismissed.”

4.2 The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has submitted a chart to explain filing of TDS statement and quantum of late fee levied u/s 234E of the Act. The same is as under :

4.3 In this case, admittedly, the TDS statement was filed on 29.10.2012 for Q-2 of FY 2012-13 and on 11.06.2013 for Q-4 of FY 2012-13. Thus, the TDS statement were filed before 01.06.2015. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, however, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and Hon’ble Madras High Court. Whenever, there are decisions of the different Hon’ble High Courts on the same issue contrary to each other then the decision which is favourable to the assessee needs to be considered, in the absence of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court decisions. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to follow the said principle. The ITAT, Pune in the case of Dinesh

ITA Nos.829, 830 & 831/PUN/2026

Dattatray Shinde Vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 2285, 2286 & 2287/PUN/2025, vide order dated 23.01.2026 has held as under : “Quote, 5.2 We are aware of the fact that there are contrary decisions on this issue. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India 289 CTR 0602(Kar) held in favour of assessee as under : “23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid. 24. ………………..In view of the reasons recorded by us hereinabove, when the amendment made under Section 200A of the Act which has come into effect on 1.6.2015 is held to be having prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for the fee under Section 234E could be made for the TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent-authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent.” 5.3 The decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court was followed by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd., vs. Union of India [2022] 134 taxmann.com 111 (Kerala). 5.4 The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Lingeshwara Creations Vs. PCIT [2024] 168 taxmann.com 383 held as under : “In the present case, the respondent had imposed the late fee only under Section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013, 20132014. 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.” 5.5 We are aware that Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani Vs. Union of India(supra) has decided the issue in favour of the Revenue. 5.6 No direct decision on the impugned issue of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has been brought to our notice. In these facts and circumstances of the case, when there are contrary decisions of different Hon’ble High Courts, in the absence of decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, the decision which is favourable to the assessee needs to be followed; as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Limited [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC). The decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court(supra) was followed by ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Medical

ITA Nos.829, 830 & 831/PUN/2026

Superintendent Rural Hospital, vs. DCIT, CPC(TDS) [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78. 6. In this case, Late Fee under section 234E has been levied for F.Y.2013-14. The chart submitted by ld.AR is reproduced as under: FY Quarter Return File on Date of 200A order Late Filing levy 2013-14 Q2 20-Sep-14 25-Sep-14 47,368 2013 Q3 20-Sep-14 25-Sep-14 17,735 2013 Q4 20-sep-14 25-Sep-14 25,600 6.1 Admittedly, assessee had filed TDS Return on 20.09.2014 which is before 01.06.2015. Therefore, respectfully following the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, Hon’ble Madras High Court, Hon’ble Kerala High Court and ITAT Pune Bench(supra) it is held that Late Fee levied under section 234E in the case of the assessee for the period prior to 01.06.2015 is bad-in-law. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the Late Fee levied under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, Grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed.”Unquote.

ITA Nos. 831/PUN/2026, AY 2015-16

ITA Nos.829, 830 & 831/PUN/2026

of section 234E of the Act. Hence, the late fee levied u/s 234E of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, appeal in ITA No. 831/PUN/2016 is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MS. ASTHA CHANDRA) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 13-07-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.07.14 15:14:41 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune