SHRADDHA RAVINDRA SHIKHARE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CPC (TDS), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the delay occurred after the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which incorporated the provisions of Section 234E for processing TDS statements, the levy of late filing fees was valid.
What were the facts?
The assessee delayed filing the statement of tax deduction at source in Form No. 26QB for AY 2016-17. Consequently, a late filing fee of Rs. 14,600 was levied under Section 234E.
What were the issues?
Whether the late filing fee under Section 234E is leviable for a delay in filing TDS statements when the processing occurs after the amendment of Section 200A.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri S.Rifaur Rehman & Shri Ravish Sood
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PAN – BXVPS5256D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri. Rakesh Joshi Respondent by: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R Date of Hearing: 27.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 29.11.2019 O R D E R
PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-60, Mumbai, dated 14.06.2018 for A.Y. 2016-17, which in turn arises from the intimation received from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad, under Sec. 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „Act‟), dated 25.04.2016. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer in levying a late filing fees of Rs. 14,600/- u/s.234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal.”
Shraddha Ravindra Shikhare vs. ACIT, CPC – A.Y 2016-17 2 2. Briefly stated, the assessee had delayed filing of the statement of tax deduction at source in „Form No. 26QB‟ for A.Y. 2016-17. Resultantly, the ACIT, Central Processing Cell-TDS inter alia levied late filing fees under Sec. 234E of Rs. 14,600/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the imposition of fees under Sec.234E. However, the contentions advanced by the assessee did not find favour with the CIT(A). Observing, that even for the period prior to 01.06.2015 the charging of fee under Sec.234E was a part of the statute which called for a levy of fee for default in furnishing the statements, the CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee and upheld the fees levied under Se. 234E.
We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties, and also perused the order/intimation of the lower authorities. On a perusal of Sec. 234E, we find, that the same envisages levy of fees on a person who fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 206C. Admittedly, the assessee in the case before us had delayed the filing of the statement of tax deduction at source in „Form No. 26QB‟ for A.Y. 2016-17. As per the amendment made available in Sec. 200A, vide the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f 01.06.2015, where a statement of tax deduction at source [or a correction statement] has been made by a person deducting any sum under section 200, such statement shall be processed, and the fees, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 234E. As the period in the case before us is subsequent to 01.06.2015 i.e the date on which Sec. 234E enabling levy of late filing fees was made available in Sec. 200A, therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the ACIT, Central Processing Cell- TDS, Ghaziabad, who in our considered view had rightly levied late filing fees under Sec. 234E of Rs. 14,600/- on the assessee. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who had upheld the levy of fees by the ACIT, CPC, we uphold his order.
Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/11/2019.
More judgments on Section 234E
- Mulchand Ramkishan Laddha, Pune vs Income Tax Officer (TDS-2), PuneITA 874/PUN/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2669/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2668/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2667/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2666/PUN/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026