SHRI MANU LOKRAMDAS MENDA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER

These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Hyderabad, both dated 23/03/2018 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. Since facts and issues are common, clubbed and heard together and disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the order u/sec. 200A of the Act

2 ITA Nos. 331 & 332/VIZ/2018 (Manu Lokramdas Menda)

dated 24/06/2016, by which the Assessing Officer levied late fee u/sec. 234E of Rs. 7,200/- and interest on late payment of Rs.900/-. The case of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) is that the CPC cannot calculate the fee as the assessee has fulfilled the statutory obligation. Fees are paid for Government services that directly help to a specific person here no Government service is rendered to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) by considering the explanation of the assessee observed that section 234E mentions the word failure to furnish the required statements would result in levy of fee. Section 234E does not discuss the rendering of service at all by defaulting in furnishing the statement. The assessee has caused hardship to the deductees as they have not able to get the due credit on time with regard to their credit to be given by the Government in section 26AS. Accordingly, assessee’s appeal was dismissed. 3. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld.AR relied on the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, whereas ld.DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 5. We find that ld. CIT(A) by considering section 234E and also by considering the explanation given by the assessee gave a

3 ITA Nos. 331 & 332/VIZ/2018 (Manu Lokramdas Menda)

categorical finding that he has not filed required forms i.e. Form No. 24Q – Q4. Accordingly, he confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in levying late fee u/sec. 234E of the Act. The assessee is not able to substantiate his case neither Assessing Officer nor ld. CIT(A) committed any error in charging the late fee. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 6. With regard to ITA No. 332/VIZ/2018 is concerned, the facts involved in this appal are similar to the facts of ITA No. 332/VIZ/2018. Therefore, our decision above shall apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also. 7. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order Pronounced in open Court on this 25th day of Sept., 2019.

Sd/- sd/- (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (V. DURGA RAO) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 25th September, 2019. vr/-

4 ITA Nos. 331 & 332/VIZ/2018 (Manu Lokramdas Menda)

Copy to: 1. The Assessee – Manu Lokramdas Menda, D.No. 28-16- 12, Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Revenue – ITO, Ward-6(2), Visakhapatnam. 3. The Pr.CIT (TDS), Vijayawada. 4. The CIT(A)-5, Hyderabad. 5. The D.R., Visakhapatnam. 6. Guard file. By order

(VUKKEM RAMBABU) Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Visakhapatnam.