C. PANNEERSELVAM,KUNDAPURA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member

“1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] passed under Section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.

3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Section 200A does not permit processing of TDS statement for default in payment of late fees for the period 01/01/2012 to 01/06/2015 & the levy of fees processed U/s 2001 for the above period, is liable to be deleted full, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act amounting to Rs.28,200/ computed by the learned assessing officer on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without Prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that there was no enabling provision prior to 01/06/2015 to recover fee u/s. 234E and that the levy of 234E for the impugned year being prior to 01/06/2015 needs to be quashed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the hearing of the appeal the Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice.” 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed TDS Form for the quarter Q4 2014-15 on 3.10.2015 which is beyond the due date i.e. 15/05/2015. There was a delay of 141 days. The AO levied late fee u/s. 234E @ Rs.200 per day for 141 days aggregating to Rs.28,200. The assessee submitted that the AO has no power to charge the said fees while processing the TDS returns u/s. 200A of the Act prior to the substitution of clause (c) to Section 200A(1) vide Finance Act, 2015. The CIT(Appeals), NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us.