INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

ORDER

PER SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM :

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. Faceless CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the order of lower authorities wherein it has been held that, after passing a long order running into 14 pages, that levy of late fees u/s 234E was correct. The levy be deleted.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order pertains to period falling prior to 01-06-2015 i.e. before insertion of cl. (c) in sec. 200A of the Act from when statutory sanction for collection of late fees was granted. It was necessary to consider whether sec. 234E was applicable in the absence of statutory sanction such late fees were not leviable. The fees levied be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in the last sentence held as not admissible in law and on facts the appellant submits that the late fees were not leviable in facts and in law, in such circumstances the CIT(A) (Faceless) ought to have passed the order in favour of the assessee following the jurisdictional Tribunal verdicts. It be held accordingly. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the filing of the appeal is delayed by few days. The appellant was prevented by sufficient cause. The application for condonation of delay along with sworn affidavit will be filed at the time of hearing. The delay be condoned and appeal be admitted for hearing.

2 ITA 531/PUN/2021 Indiasoft Technolopgies A.Y. 2016-17

3. We have perused the case records and heard the submissions of the parties before us. We find that the only issue for adjudication is the levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. It is settled legal position that such power to the Department was not there for levying such late fee u/s 234E prior to 01-06-2015. Admittedly the assessment year involved in this case is 2016-17. Perusal of intimation u/s 154 read with section 200A dt. 05-11-2019 issued by TDS-CPC shows that the assessee’s original TDS return filed in form 26Q for Q1 of F.Y. 2015-16 relevant to A.Y. 2016-17 was processed and intimation u/s 200A was issued on 25-04-2016 itself. Therefore the incidence of charging late fees u/s 234E of the Act initiated by the Department is post 01-06-2015. In view of this, the NFAC was justified in confirming the order of the A.O in levying the late fees u/s 234E of the Act. We therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the NFAC and the same is upheld.