M/S DYNASCAN INSPECTION SYSTEMS COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3118/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 November 2019AY 2013-144 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 Section 200A, as interpreted by the Karnataka High Court, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. Therefore, the demand for late fees under Section 234E for the second quarter was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed TDS returns late for two quarters, leading to a demand for late fees under Section 234E and interest. The assessee filed a rectification application which was not successful. The assessee then appealed against the order levying the late fee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the applicability of Section 200A for levying late fees under Section 234E for the assessment year 2013-14, given the prospective nature of Section 200A as per High Court rulings. Another procedural issue regarding filing a single appeal for two quarters was also addressed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 200A,Section 234E,Section 154,Section 220(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES : “B”, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN & SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICAL MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri K.S.Dinesh, CA
For Respondent: Smt. P.Renugadevi, JCIT

PER SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 24/09/18 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-3, Bangalore for assessment year 2013-14 on following grounds of appeal:

(B)/2018 2 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) 1. was wrong in holding that the appellant should have filed the appeal challenging the order u/s200A of the Act and not the orders u154 of the Act.. The ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) order 2. is entirely contradictory to law and facts of the case as the levy under section 234E is settled by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Fatheraj Singvi and other Vs Union of India reported in 2016(86) Kar.L.J.563(HC)(DB) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 2.Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessee is a firm having registered office at Bangalore carrying on business of manufacture and profile projectors which is basically testing and measuring equipment. 2.1 During the year under consideration, assessee filed second and third quarterly return electronically with delay which was processed under section 200 of the Act, and demand of Rs.41,800/- as late fee for belated filing of TDS return under section 234E of the Act, along with Rs.7,200/- as interest on late payment was levied.

3. Aggrieved, by demand raised, assessee filed rectification application under section 154 for discharging interest on late payment which was processed on 26/01/2018, without there being any change. 3.1 Assessee challenges order under section 200 A of the Act for levy of late fee under section 234 for delayed filing of TDS return, as it is effective from 01/06/2015. Ld.AR placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singvi and Ors. Vs

More judgments on Section 200A

All 4,379 judgments and leading authorities on Section 200A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →