MR. SUNNY CHADHA,DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3500/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2019AY 2014-152 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 levy of fee under Section 200A prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. They followed the Karnataka High Court's decision in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the levy of late fee under Section 200A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The appeal was filed by Shri Sunny Chadha against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the legality of levying a fee under Section 200A of the Income-tax Act for a period before its amendment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 200A

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 G.D. AGRAWAL & AND BEFORE SHRI & AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Gulati, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR
Hearing: 25.04.2019Pronounced: 07.05.2019

PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT :- PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT

1.

This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A)-41, New Delhi dated 18th March, 2016.

2.

The only ground raised in this appeal by the assessee is against the levy of late fee under Section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to `20,600/-.

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

2 ITA-3500/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 200A prior to 1st June, 2015 was not sustainable. Accordingly, we delete the same.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 07.05.2019.

More judgments on Section 200A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →