HIGHWAY RESTAURANT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1883/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 December 2021AY 2014-153 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 levying late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not justified. This decision was based on previous ITAT rulings on similar facts.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a TDS statement late for the quarter ending March 2014. The CPC-TDS levied late fees under Section 234E. The assessee appealed, claiming they received the intimation late due to a technical issue with their consultant's email.

What were the issues?

Whether late fees under Section 234E can be levied for filing TDS statements late for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Whether the assessee's explanation for the delay in receiving the intimation was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Respondent: Mr. Vinay Kaushal, DR
Hearing: 01/12/2021Pronounced: 02/12/2021

ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, A.M. The sole ground of appeal is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-59, Mumbai confirming the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS in levying late fees u/s 234E of the Act to the amount of ₹10,400/-.

2. At the outset, it is noticed that none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of calls and even no application for adjournment was moved. On the other hand, Ld. DR is present in the court and is ready with arguments. Therefore, we have Highway Restaurant 2 decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR and the material placed on record.

3. The fact in brief that the assessee has filed TDS statement for the quarter 4 (January 2014-March 2014) on 30.09.2014. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS has served an intimation u/s 200A of the Act to the assessee on 30.12.2015 and levied late fees for filing TDS statement u/s 234E of the Act for assessment year 2014-15.

4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that the assessee has made delay in filing the appeal and proper reason for the delay was not substantiated.

5. Heard the Ld. DR and perused the material on record. Without reiterating the facts has elaborated above the Assessing Officer has levied late fees u/s 234E of the Act for the period prior to 01.06.2015. The assessee has explained before the Ld. CIT(A) that it has received the intimation u/s 200A of the Act on 03.12.2015 only and there was technical default in giving E-mail of his tax consultant, therefore, it could not receive the intimation electronically. In the written submission, the assessee has submitted that identical issue of similar facts has been adjudicated by the ITAT, Mumbai in favour of the assessee on the issue of levying of impugned late fees for the period prior to 01.06.2015. In this regard, the assessee has relied on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Ravi Kumar Valecha v. Assessing Officer TDS ward, Kalyan (ITA No. 4822/Mum/2016) dated 15.06.2018. We have perused the submission of the assessee and also gone through the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Popular Catering Services v. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Mumbai (ITA No. 674/M/2019 for

More judgments on Section 234E

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →