Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Pawan Singh (JM) & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(A.M.)
O R D E R
PER PAWAN SINGH, JM :
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-1, Mumbai dated 24-09-2018 for assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- “(a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the genuine reason of appellant representative. (c) The order of the CIT(A) in this case is based upon surmises and conjectures and far removed from the facts of the case.
2. The assessee is in trading of business of iron and steel. The assessee filed his quarterly TDS statement for first quarter for AY 2014-15 Wasivrehman Ch. beyond due date of furnishing statement of TDS. Due date for first quarter was 15.07.2013. However the assessee filed / furnished return / statement on 11.12.2014. The DCIT/CPC-TDS – Ghaziabad levied an interest/ late fee of Rs. 21,055/- vide its intimation / order dated 14.12.2014. On appeal before CIT(A), the action of the Assessing Officer / CPC TDS was affirmed. Thus, further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appal before us.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite the service of notice of hearing of the appeal. Even no application for adjournment was filed on behalf of assessee, thus, we left no option except to hear the submissions of the ld. departmental representative (DR) for the revenue and to decide the case on the basis of material on record. We have heard the submission of the Ld. DR for the revenue and perused the material available on record. The ld DR supported the order of lower authorities.
The Ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. DR submits that the Ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the applicability of section 234E as well as section 200A of the Act.
We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute that for quarter -1, of AY 2014-15, the assessee furnished the TDS statement on 11.12.2014 instead of furnishing on or before due date i.e. 15.07.2013. The assessee paid an interest of Rs. 425/-. Admittedly, TDS was deducted prior to 01-06-2015. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs UOI reported viz (73 taxmann.com 252), wherein it was held that the amendment in section 200A has come into effect on 01.06.2015 and has 2 Wasivrehman Ch. prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for fee under section 234E can be made for TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence, the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. Similar view was taken by this bench (by same combination) in Venus Electronics And Controls Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITA No. 5073/Mum/2018 date 18.12.2019). In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find that no late fees were leviable on the assessee; therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16 -01-2020.