M/S KAM AIR CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CPC-(TDS), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2321/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 20192 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 followed the Karnataka High Court's decision, which held that the levy of fee under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Therefore, the late fee was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee argued that the levy was not sustainable.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of levying late fee under Section 234E before a specific date, considering conflicting High Court judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E

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, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Before: SHRI & AND & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR
Hearing: 24.04.2019Pronounced: 07.05.2019

PER G.D. AGRAWAL, PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PER G.D. AGRAWAL, PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT :- PRESIDENT These two appeals by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 are directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-41, New Delhi dated 25th January, 2016.

2.

The only ground raised in this appeal by the assessee is against the levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to `85,600/- and `76,880/-.

3.

We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. We find that on this issue, there are contrary views – one by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani Vs. Union of India – (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 in favour of the Revenue, and the other of Hon’ble Karnataka High

1.

2 ITA-2320 & 2321/Del/2016 Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi – (2016) 73 taxmann.com 252 in favour of the assessee. It is settled law that when two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee is to be adopted. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra), hold that the levy of fee under Section 234E prior to 1st June, 2015 was not sustainable. Accordingly, we delete the same.

4.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 07.05.2019.

More judgments on Section 234E

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →