MULCHAND RAMKISHAN LADDHA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-2), PUNE

ITA 874/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 September 2026AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Mulchand Ramkisan Laddha, filed a quarterly TDS statement (Form 26Q) for Quarter-4 of FY 2012-13 on 27.11.2013. The AO, CPC, TDS processed this statement on 23.12.2013. Subsequently, the assessee filed a correction statement on 10.12.2021, which was processed by CPC, TDS via an order under Section 154 dated 11.12.2021. This resulted in the levy of a late fee of Rs. 39,200/- under Section 234E and interest of Rs. 37,632/- under Section 220(2). The assessee appealed this order to the Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata, who upheld the levy. The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2013-14.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the late fee levied under Section 234E for the period prior to 01.06.2015 is bad-in-law. The Tribunal noted that while there are contrary decisions, it would follow the favorable decision for the assessee in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court ruling, as per the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Limited. The Tribunal specifically referred to the Karnataka High Court's decision in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India, which held that Section 200A, amended to include computation of fees under Section 234E, has prospective effect from 01.06.2015, making demands for periods prior to that date without legal authority. The Tribunal also noted that the Madras High Court, in a later decision in Lingeswara Creations v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, also held that in the absence of Section 200A provisions during the relevant assessment years (2012-2013, 2013-2014), late fees under Section 234E ought not to have been imposed. The Tribunal found that the Karnataka High Court's decision was by a Division Bench, whereas the initial Madras High Court decision relied upon by the CIT(A) was by a Single Member. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the late fee levied under Section 234E. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether late fee under Section 234E can be levied for Assessment Year 2013-14 (Financial Year 2012-13)? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that no late fee under Section 234E can be levied for AY 2013-14. The assessee relied on decisions from Kerala High Court in Sark Cable (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO, Madras High Court in Linteswara Creations Vs. Pr. CIT and Sri Rujula International Vs. Pr. CIT, and Pune Tribunal decisions in Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune Vs. DCIT, Gajanan Construction Vs. DCIT, and Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital Vs. DCIT. Revenue's contentions: The revenue supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A). The revenue relied on decisions from Madras High Court in Conceria International (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO and Gujarat High Court in Rajesh Kourani Vs. Union of India.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 250,Section 200A,Section 154,Section 220(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: MS. ASTHA CHANDRA & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Deshpande
For Respondent: Ms. Bhavya. I.V., Jt. CIT

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata [Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2013-14 on 30.12.2025. Submission of Ld. AR :

2.

The Ld. AR submitted that no late fee u/s 234E can be levied for AY 2013-14. The Ld. AR relied on the following decisions : i. Sark Cable (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO, (2023) 451 ITR 167 (Kerala); ii. 383 (Madras); iii. taxmann.com 367 (Madras);

2 74 t

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 234E

All 4,784 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234E →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →