UNISPIN CARD CLOTHING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, COIMBATORE

ITA 4134/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 October 2026AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act, while processing the TDS statement under section 200A in respect of the period prior to 01.06.2015, is not sustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the established judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in True Blue Voice India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCIT and the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Derby Clothing Pvt. Ltd. and Avinash Kishore Hemdev. The Tribunal observed that although section 234E provided for the levy of fee, the mechanism for computation of such fee under section 200A was not available prior to 01.06.2015, as the enabling provision in section 200A(1)(c) was inserted only with effect from that date. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the late filing fee of Rs. 41,800/- levied under section 234E. The order of the CIT(A) confirming the levy was set aside to this extent. Other contentions raised by the assessee were not adjudicated separately as the issue on merits was decided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Unispin Card Clothing India Private Limited, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the levy of late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is 2013-14. The assessee filed its quarterly TDS statement for the third quarter of FY 2012-13 on 06.09.2013. An intimation under section 200A dated 12.10.2016 levied a late filing fee of Rs. 41,800/- under section 234E. The assessee had also filed a rectification petition before the Assessing Officer seeking deletion of this levy, but no order was passed. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, holding that section 234E is a charging provision and its levy was valid even before the amendment to section 200A.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the levy of late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable while processing a quarterly TDS statement under section 200A of the Act for a period prior to 01.06.2015? Assessee's contention: The assessee relied on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in Shantilal, Chennai v. ITO, TDS Ward-3(2), Chennai, which held that the levy of late filing fee under section 234E for the period prior to 01.06.2015 is not sustainable. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue before the Tribunal. However, the CIT(A)'s order, which was upheld by the assessee, argued that section 234E is a charging provision and section 200A is a machinery provision, and the amendment to section 200A from 01.06.2015 was clarificatory/procedural, thus not invalidating the levy for an earlier period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: GAGAN GOYAL & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 16.09.2026

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.05.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, Nagpur [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”], confirming the levy of late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), while processing the quarterly TDS statement under section 200A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013-14. UNISPIN CARD CLO

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →