RAJDEEP LEASING AND FINANCE (DELHI) PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 21(1), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4607/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 September 20264 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E could only be charged for delays in filing TDS statements after June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy was illegal for defaults prior to this date.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s order rejecting them as time-barred. The core issue was the legality of levying a fee under Section 234E for delays in filing TDS returns prior to June 1, 2015.

What were the issues?

Whether the fee under Section 234E is leviable for TDS return filing delays occurring before June 1, 2015. Whether the appeal rejection on grounds of being time-barred was justified when the levy itself was illegal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 154,Section 200A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

Hearing: 27.08.2026Pronounced: 24.09.2026

PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM:

Both the cases have been filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.03.2026 and 27.02.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Nagpur for Assessment Year: 2014-15.

2 ITA Nos. 4606 & 4607/Del/2026 Rajdeep Leasing and Finance (Delhi) P Ltd. 2. Since, grounds of both the appeals are the same, therefore both the appeals were heard together. Common order is passed for the sake of convenience of brevity.

3.

Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in both the appeals are same as under:

“1. The learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal on the ground that appeal is time barred.

2.

The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate and note that when AO had not communicated any decision on the application filed u/s 154 of the Act against charging of the fee u/s 234E, then the date of letter "intimation of outstanding demand" i.e. 17/05/2023 is the date on which order u/s 154 denying the relief was communicated to appellant.

3.

The learned CIT(A) erred in considering the application as time barred when order passed u/s 154 of the Act on 10/05/2023 was communicated only on 17/05/2023.

4.

The learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting the fee u/s 234E of the Act which was levied illegally.

5.

The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.”

4.

During proceedings before us, the ld. counsel of the assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that this issue is squarely covered by the majority view expressed by the third member in the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai “E” Bench, in a group of cases in ITA No. 4406/Mum/2017 in the case of Emsons Exim Pvt.

3 ITA Nos. 4606 & 4607/Del/2026 Rajdeep Leasing and Finance (Delhi) P Ltd. Ltd. v. ITO (TDS). The ld. counsel also brought it to the notice of the Bench that this issues is squarely covered by the co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 304 to 309/Del/2024. We find that the co-ordinate Bench has given its finding on this issue as under:

“9. Considered the rival contention and perused the material on record. The issue that needs to be addressed here is, whether or not the Assessing Officer could charge late fee under provisions of section 234E of the Act, where admittedly quarterly TDS returns filed by assessee were delayed. Identical issue arose before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai "E" Bench, Mumbai, in a group of cases being ITA no.4406/Mum./2017, etc., vide order dated 28th August 2019, Emsons Exim Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO (TDS), wherein the Co-ordinate Bench followed the majority view expressed by the Third Member by observing that the fee under section 234E of the Act can only be charged in respect of delay in filing the statement of TDS for the period after 1st June 2015. Although, the fact remains that the assessee is defaulted in filing the TDS return belatedly prior to 1st June 2015. Since the issue raised in the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of ITA, Mumbai. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the authorities below were not justified in levying penalty and the interest thereon. Since the default committed by the assessee is i.e., prior to 1st June 2015, the Assessing Officer is not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act by way of intimation issued under section 200A of the Act. Similarly, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal also taken similar view in the case of ICMC Project Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1361 to 1374/Del/2021. Even though the assessee has filed the present appeal with delay and Ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay, however, the delay cause to the assessee may have various reasons, however, it is fact on record that the levy was levied prior to 01/06/2015 and there was no mechanism but levy such fees at that point of time, therefore, the delay can be condoned at this stage and the case was allowed on merits. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.”

4 ITA Nos. 4606 & 4607/Del/2026 Rajdeep Leasing and Finance (Delhi) P Ltd. 5. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).

6.

We have considered the findings given by the co-ordinate Bench on the same issue in assessee’s own case on the basis of majority view in the third member case of the Bombay Tribunal and we find that this issue is squarely covered by the co- ordinate bench decision in assessee’s own case in earlier years as mentioned above. Accordingly, following the ratio decided by the co-ordinate bench on this issue in assessee’s own case, appeals on this ground is allowed.

7.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (KRINWANT SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24.09.2026 *GP/Sr.PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(E) 4. CIT 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 234E

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →