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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 728/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 August 2022AY 2015-164 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 the insertion of Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, for assessment years prior to this date, such a levy was not permissible under the amended section.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed against orders upholding the charging of interest under Section 234E for default in furnishing TDS statements. The assessee contended that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing for the levy of such fees, was not applicable to the assessment years in question.

What were the issues?

Whether the levy of fee under Section 234E is permissible for assessment years prior to the amendment of Section 200A(1)(c) which enabled such levy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Charuhas Upasani &, Shri Vishnudas Bangad
For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

आदेश / ORDER

PER BENCH :

1.

All these appeals filed by the assessee against the separate order dated 02-09-2021, 01-09-2021 & 30-07-2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”) upholding the charging of interest u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of above mentioned assessment years.

2.

We find that 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.

3.

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.

4.

First, we shall take up appeal of assessee in for A.Y. 2013-14.

5.

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.

6. 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.

7.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.

8.

We find that the issue raised in the appeals and the facts in 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.

9.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 30th August, 2022.

Sd/- Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 30th August, 2022. रधव आदेश की प्रधतधलधप अग्रेधषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 4. The CIT concerned. धवभागीय प्रधतधनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “बी” बेंच, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. //सत्याधपत प्रधत// True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

वररष्ठ धनजी सधचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 234E

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →