Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM
आदेश / ORDER
PER BENCH :
All these ten appeals are filed by the assessee against a common
order dated 30.06.2017 passed by CIT(A)-3, Nashik for A.Ys. 2013-14 to
2015-16.
Shri Kishore Phadke, Ld.A.R. submits that the assessee raised
additional ground of appeal and prayed to take up the same as preliminary
issue. Ld. D.R. Shri Pankaj Garg, reported no objection in taking up
additional ground raised by the assessee as preliminary issue.
We find the assessee raised similar additional ground in all the
appeals above on same identical facts except variance in amounts and
therefore with the consent of both the parties, proceed to adjudicate the
additional ground raised by the assessee in ITA No.2008/PUN/2017 as
lead case and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
The issue raised in additional ground is to whether the CIT(A)
justified in confirming late fee imposed in Q4-24Q for A.Y. 2013-14 u/s
200A r.w. 234E of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.
We shall take up the appeal in ITA.No.2008/PUN/2017.
Brief facts emanating from the record, that the assessee is a
company engaged in the business of Poultry Farming and filed its TDS
Quarterly Statement of Quarter – 4 for A.Y. 2013-14 on 05.02.2014 with a
delay of 266 days. According to ACIT(TDS-CPC), the assessee should have
filed TDS Quarterly Statement on 15.05.2013 and accordingly imposed
late fee u/s 234E of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the late fee in respect of
24Q-Q4.
The contention of Shri Kishore Phadke, the Ld.A.R. is that AO has no
jurisdiction to charge late fee u/s 234E of the Act for the reason that there
was no enabling procedure for computation of late fee u/s 200A of the Act
concerning the year under consideration. Further, he submitted that the
computation of late fee was inserted in the Finance Act w.e.f. 01.06.2015
and since the amendment is prospective in nature, the late fee imposed u/s
234E r.w. 200A of the Act is not maintainable in the present case. The
Ld.A.R. placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of
Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, DOBI BK Vs. DCIT, CPC(TDS)
reported in (2018) 100 taxmann.com 78 (Pune - Trib) and referred to Para
Nos.15 & 16 and submitted that the demand of late fee is not maintainable
even if the returns of the TDS were filed after 01.06.2015, the order
charging late filing fee was passed after 01.06.2015. He argued that the
factual circumstances are similar to the present case, the assessee filed
TDS statements belatedly after 01.06.2015 and the ACIT, (CPS-TDS)
charged late fee u/s 234E of the Act after 01.06.2015. The Ld. D.R. did
not controvert the same.
Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. We
find the issue raised in the present appeal is similar to the issue raised by
the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Medical
Superintendent Rural Hospital, DOBI BK(supra), wherein the co-ordinate
Bench of the Tribunal held that charging of late fee u/s 234E of the Act is
not maintainable even if the assessee files TDS returns belatedly and the
Assessing Officer issues intimation u/s 200A of the Act after 01.06.2015
charging late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act. Therefore, we find force in the
arguments of Shri Kishore Phadke, Ld.A.R. and the imposition of late fee
u/s 200A r.w 234E of the Act confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) is set aside. Thus,
additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
Further, main grounds 1 to 5 raised in Form No.36 become academic
and require no adjudication in view of our decision on additional ground in
the formation para. Thus, the same are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No.2008/PUN/2017 is
allowed.
Now, we shall take up ITA Nos.2009 to 2017/PUN/2017.
Since the additional ground raised in all these appeals are similar to
the additional ground raised in ITA No.2008/PUN/2017 and since we
decided the additional ground in favour of the assessee and the same is
equally applicable in ITA Nos.2009 to 2017/PUN/2017. Thus, the
additional ground raised by the assessee in all the appeals above are allowed.
In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced on 6th day of November, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (D. KARNUKARA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 6th November, 2019. Yamini
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. CIT(A)-3, Nashik. 4. CIT(TDS), Pune. 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “बी”/ DR, ITAT, “B” Pune; 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स �या // / TRUE COPY / / // True Copy //
व�र�ठ �नजी स�चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.