ULTRA CARBON INDUSTRIES,BANAGRAM vs. ITO, WARD 25(1),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2741/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 June 2026AY 2024-20253 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the initial filing was within the due time and the subsequent filing was a revision. Therefore, levying late fee under Section 234E was incorrect.

What were the facts?

The assessee initially filed Form 26Q on time but faced issues with the RRR number, leading to deductees' tax not appearing in their Form 26AS. A revised Form 26Q was filed later, which the AO treated as late, levying interest under Section 234E.

What were the issues?

Whether the interest levied under Section 234E for late filing of Form 26Q is sustainable when the initial filing was on time and the subsequent filing was a revision due to technical issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200A,Section 206CB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.06.2026Pronounced: 25.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2741/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year:2024-25) Ultra Carbon Industries, ITO, Vill: Banagram (Green Park), Vs. Ward – 25(1), South 24 Parganas, West Bengal Kolkata - 700104 [PAN: AABFU5885G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2026

O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”], dated 06.11.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2024-25.

2.

The only issue raised by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) upholding the order of Assessing Officer, Central Processing Centre (In short, ‘the AO’), wherein the AO, CPC levied interest of Rs.44,200/- u/s 234E of the Act.

ITA No.2741/Kol/2025/AY 2024-25 Ultra Carbon Industries vs. ITO 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee submitted Form 26Q in respect of Quarter–1 of the Financial Year (F.Y.)2023-24 on 04.10.2023 under Acknowledgement No.384538340041023. However, the RRR No. was noted as ‘not applicable’. The assessee was not conversant with the term RRR No. and did not take any further action. Subsequently, upon receiving information from the deductees about the data in respect of deduction of tax at source not appearing in their respective Form 26AS, the assessee upon inquiry and upon being advised to submit a fresh Form 26Q. Accordingly the Form 26Q was filed on 08.05.2024. Thereafter, AO, CPC was issued intimation u/s 200A/206CB of the Acton 12.05.2024, wherein demanded a sum of Rs.44,200/- on account of late filling u/s 234E of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A), however, the ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of AO, CPC.

5.

We have heard rival submissions and the perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessee has duly filed Form 26Q on 04.10.2023 in respect of Quarter-1 for F.Y. 2023-24 for which acknowledgement was also issued. However, the RRR Number was noted as ‘not applicable’. Therefore, the tax deducted by the assessee on behalf of the deductees was not appearing Form 26AS of the deductees. Accordingly, the deductees again requested to assessee to uphold the Form 26Q and accordingly it was done on 08.05.2024. The AO, CPC processed the same and issued Intimation u/s 200A/206CB of the Act for late filling fee u/s 234E of the Act. We note that the Form 26Q was originally filed within the time and same was resubmitted again on 08.05.2024. The AO CPC treated the same as filed late and levied late filing fee. In our opinion, the assessee has

ITA No.2741/Kol/2025/AY 2024-25 Ultra Carbon Industries vs. ITO duly filed Form 26Q within due time and later on 08.05.2024 which was just revision of the earlier one. Therefore, the AO, CPC has erred in charging late fee u/s 234E of the Act. Similarly, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of AO, CPC. In our opinion the late fee charged by the AO CPC is wrong and cannot be sustained. Consequently, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct AO – TDS to delete the late filing fee.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 25/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Pradip Kumar Choubey) (Rajesh Kumar) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 25/06/2026 SAMANTA आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent. 3. संबं�धतआयकरआयु�त/ Concerned CIT आयकरआयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. 5. �वभागीय��त�न�ध, आयकरअपील�यअ�धकरण,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड�फाईल / Guard file.

BY ORDER,

Asstt.Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 234E

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →