YASHADA DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (TDS-3), , PUNE

We find that ITA Nos. 726 to 728/PUN/2021 was filed with a delay of 59 days, ITA Nos. 729 & 730/PUN/2021 was filed with a delay of 60 days and ITA No. 734 to 736/PUN/2021 was filed with a delay of 93 days. Upon hearing both the parties, we find that the above said delay is saved by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed during National Lockdown imposed on account of pandemic Covid-19. Therefore, the above said delay in respective appeals are condoned.

Since, the issues raised in all the appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear all the appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

First, we shall take up appeal of assessee in ITA No. 726/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2013-14.

The assessee raised two grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in upholding the order passed u/s. 200A confirming the levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act for default in furnishing TDS statement for A.Y. 2013-14 in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that fee for default in furnishing the TDS statements have been imposed on the assessee u/s. 234E of the Act for financial year 2012-13 (A.Y. 2013-14). Section 200A deals with processing of TDS statements of tax deducted at source and Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A was inserted by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01-06-2015 providing for the levy of fee u/s.234E of the Act. In such circumstances, levy of such fee u/s.234E can be levied only after 01-06-2015 for the default committed by the assessee. We find that the period covered in the present subject appeal before us is financial year 2012-13 (A.Y. 2013-14). Therefore, we hold that the amendment by insertion of Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of section 200A of the Act is not applicable, therefore, the order of CIT(A) is not justified and it is set aside.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.

We find that the issue raised in the appeals and the facts in ITA Nos. 727 to 730 & 734 to 736/PUN/2021 are identical to ITA No. 726/PUN/2021 except the variance in amount and period. Since, the facts in ITA Nos. 727 to 730 & 734 to 736/PUN/2021 are similar to ITA No. 726/PUN/2021, the findings given by us while deciding the grounds of appeal of assessee in ITA No. 726/PUN/2021 would mutatis mutandis apply to ITA Nos. 727 to 730 & 734 to 736/PUN/2021, as well. All the appeals of assessee are allowed, accordingly.

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed.