CENTRE FOR EXCELLENCE IN ORGANIZATION PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3745/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 October 20265 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the late fees levied by the CPC (TDS) under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2013-14 (Q2) and AY 2014-15 (Q2 & Q3) were not sustainable. The Tribunal found that Section 200A of the Act, which grants the power to levy such fees, was inserted only with effect from 01.06.2015. Consequently, for the assessment years in question, the CPC did not possess the authority to impose late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A. The Tribunal relied on the binding decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in M/s. Sri Rujula International. The Tribunal further noted that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal on the ground of delay, as the original order of the CPC was null and void (non-est in the eyes of law) due to lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, the question of condoning delay against a non-existent order did not arise. The impugned actions of the CPC (TDS) were set aside. The appeals were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Centre For Excellence In Organization Pvt Ltd, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, against orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi. The appeals pertained to Assessment Years (AY) 2013-14 (2nd quarter) and AY 2014-15 (2nd and 3rd quarters). The challenge was to the action of the CPC (TDS) in levying late fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while processing TDS statements under Section 200A. The amounts in dispute were Rs. 18,400/- for AY 2013-14 (Q2), Rs. 58,000/- for AY 2014-15 (Q2), and Rs. 39,600/- for AY 2014-15 (Q3). The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals on grounds of delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CPC (TDS) had the jurisdiction to levy late fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while processing TDS statements under Section 200A for AY 2013-14 (Q2) and AY 2014-15 (Q2 & Q3)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that Section 200A of the Act, which empowers the CPC to levy late fees, was introduced only with effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, for the relevant assessment years (AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15), the CPC lacked the jurisdiction to levy late fees under Section 234E. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in M/s. Sri Rujula International (WP No.4307 of 2024 dated 12.09.2024). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue opposed the assessee's plea and supported the action of the CIT(A). No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 200A,Section 234E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & MS. PADMAVATHY. S

Hearing: 20.08.2026Pronounced: 12.10.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 29.04.2026 for the second quarter for AY 2013-14; and also orders dated 23.04.2026 for 2nd and 3rd quarter of AY 2014-15 passed u/s.200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA 3744 to 3746/Chny/2026 [AYs 2013-14 (27Q2), 2014-15 (26Q2) and 2014-15 (26Q3)] Centre for Excellence in Organization Pvt Ltd :: 2 :: 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee drew our attention to the impugned action of the CPC (TDS) dated 11.12.2013 passed u/s.200A of the Act for Q2 FY 2012-13 (for 2nd quarter for AY 2013-14) and submitted that the CPC without jurisdiction has ordered u/s. 234E levy of late fee of Rs.18,400/- which action is legally unsustainable. The Ld AR reminded us that Section 200A of the Act was not in the statute during the said assessment year, and it was introduced only with effect from 01.06.2015, hence the CPC didn’t enjoy the power to levy of late fee for the relevant year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. And for such a proposition, he drew our attention to the binding decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Sri Rujula International in WP No.4307 of 2024 dated 12.09.2024, wherein similar issue had come up for consideration, and the same was answered in favour of the assessee by observing as under:

4.

In the present case, the respondent had imposed the late fee only under Section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014. 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.

ITA 3744 to 3746/Chny/2026 [AYs 2013-14 (27Q2), 2014-15 (26Q2) and 2014-15 (26Q3)] Centre for Excellence in Organization Pvt Ltd :: 3 :: 3. In the light of the Hon’ble Madras High Court’s order, the Ld.AR prayed that the action of the CPC levying late fees u/s.234E of the Act is void and therefore liable to be set aside.

4.

Similarly, he drew our attention to the impugned action of the CPC(TDS) dated 07.08.2014 for quarter 2nd for AY 2014-15 and order dated 11.08.2014 for quarter 3rd for AY 2014-15 passed u/s.200A of the Act and submitted that the CPC without jurisdiction has ordered u/s.234E levy of late fee of Rs.58,000/- and 39,600/- for the 2nd and 3rd quarter of AY 2014-15 respectively which action is therefore legally unsustainable on the aforesaid reasoning given for AY 2013-14.

5.

Per contra, the Ld. DR opposed the plea of the assessee and doesn’t want us to interfere with the action of the Ld. CIT(A).

6.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record; we note that the issue raised before us is whether the late fees can be imposed u/s.234E of the Act while processing the statement of TDS u/s.200A of the 2nd Quarter for the assessment year 2013-14, as well as for 2nd and 3rd quarter for the AY 2014-15 (supra), In this regard, we find that the issue is no longer res-integra and find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Sri Rujula International (supra) has answered it in favour of assessee by finding that Section

ITA 3744 to 3746/Chny/2026 [AYs 2013-14 (27Q2), 2014-15 (26Q2) and 2014-15 (26Q3)] Centre for Excellence in Organization Pvt Ltd :: 4 :: 200A of the Act was inserted only with effect from 01.06.2015 and therefore, in the absence of any provisions under Section 200A of the Act for the relevant/captioned quarter/AY, it was held that Income Tax Authorities ought not to have imposed late fee under Section 234E while processing the applications for TDS under Section 200A. Hence, the Hon’ble Court held that the impugned Demand/Intimation letters are liable to be set aside.

8.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned actions of the CPC(TDS) under Section 200A, levying late fees u/s.234E, Rs.18,400/- for the 2nd quarter of AY 2013-14 and Rs.58,000/- and Rs.39,600/- for the 2nd and 3rd quarter for AY 2014-15 are liable to be set aside and we order accordingly.

9.

Before parting, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay of more than 4,000 days in filing of the appeal before him against the action of the CPC(TDS) u/s.200A of the Act and order levy of late fee u/s.234E of the Act. In this regard, it is noted that the action of the Ld. CIT(A) is per se erroneous because the CPC didn’t enjoy the power to levy late fee for the relevant year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 since as noted supra, it acquired its power only w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and not before that. Hence, the order of the CPC is null in the eyes of law meaning non-est in the eyes of law. Therefore, the

ITA 3744 to 3746/Chny/2026 [AYs 2013-14 (27Q2), 2014-15 (26Q2) and 2014-15 (26Q3)] Centre for Excellence in Organization Pvt Ltd :: 5 :: question of condoning the delay against a non-est order doesn’t arise and hence Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking notice of this crucial question of law. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay.

10.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced on the 12th day of October 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (प�ावती .एस) (एबी टी. वक�) (PADMAVATHY. S) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 12th October, 2026. YS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF YASHVIR Digitally signed by YASHVIR SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.10.16 15:02:58 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 200A

All 4,379 judgments and leading authorities on Section 200A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →