Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘’C’’ BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
: Assessee by Shri N. K. Bhuta, AR : Revenue by Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 14/11/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 15/11/2019 आदेश/O R D E R
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai dated 05/07/2018 (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”) arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") dt. 23/12/2013 to the Assessment Year 2012-13. A.Y. 2012-13 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Levying of Late filing Fees u/s. 234E in Intimation u/s. 200A was introduced with effect from 01/06/2015. As such, prior to 01/06/2015, Late Filing Fees could not be levied in Intimations u/s. 200A. As such, the levy of Late Filing Fees is bad in law and be deleted.
2. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any the above ground at the time of hearing.”
3. The solitary issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by levying late filing fees under section 200A of the Act.
4. The facts in brief are that the AO while processing intimation under section 200A of the Act has charged late filing fee under section 234E of the Act for late filing of quarterly TDS statements in the specified form.
5. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to Ld. CIT (A) who confirmed the order of the AO.
6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before us.
7. The learned AR before us submitted that the provisions of section 234E of the Act were introduced with effect from 1st June 2015. Therefore, there cannot be any late filing fee under section 200A of the Act for the earlier years.
8. On the other hand, the learned DR before us vehemently supported the order of the AO.
9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset we note that this tribunal involving identical facts and circumstances in the case of Marumesa Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The ITO, TDS in vide order dated 23-09- A.Y. 2012-13 3 2016 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under: