ORIGIN LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) - 2(1)(1), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A of the Act did not empower the authorities to levy late filing fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of such fees for periods before this date was invalid.
What were the facts?
The assessee company, engaged in transport services, filed its TDS returns belatedly for the financial year 2012-13. The CPC charged late filing fees under Section 234E while processing these returns under Section 200A.
What were the issues?
Whether late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. v. UOI844 citing289 CTR 602 · 2016 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEYAND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
Origin Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 610, 6th Floor, Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Building ……………. Appellant Charni Road (W), Mumbai 400 004 PAN – AAACO9569K v/s Income Tax Officer (TDS) ……………. Respondent Ward–2(1)(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Ms. Priya Shinde Revenue by : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora Date of Hearing – 19.12.2019 Date of Order – 30.12.2019
O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M.
Aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging three separate orders, all dated 21st September 2018, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–60, Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment year 2013–14.
2 P.B. Construction Company
The only common issue in dispute in all these appeals relates to levy of late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for different quarters of previous year 2012–13 corresponding to the assessment year 2013–14.
Brief facts are, the assessee is a company and is engaged in providing transport service. The assessee furnished its TDS returns electronically for different quarters of the financial year 2012–13 as provided under section 200(3) of the Act belatedly. While processing the TDS returns under section 200A of the Act, the Central Processing Centre (CPC) charged fee under section 234E of the Act due to late filing of TDS statements / returns. Challenging the levy of late filing fee, the assessee filed application under section 154 of the Act before the Income Tax Officer (TDS) seeking rectification. However, the concerned authority referring to the provisions of section 234E of the Act upheld the levy of late filing fee, thereby, rejecting the application filed for rectification. The aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer was challenged by the assessee before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer by holding that the issue raised by the assessee being debatable, the application under section 154 of the Act was rightly rejected.
3 P.B. Construction Company
We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. It is the contention of the assessee that the Revenue was not empowered to levy fee under section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. It is submitted, only after introduction of sub–clause (c) to section 200A(1) by the Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 1st June 2015, the authority concerned was empowered to levy late filing fee under section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS statement under section 200A of the Act. Thus, it is submitted, since the period for which fee under section 234E of the Act has been levied is prior to introduction of sub–clause (c) of section 200A(1) of the Act, which is applicable prospectively, no fee under section 234E of the Act can be levied.
The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals).
Having considered rival submissions and perused relevant statutory provisions, it is noticed that, though, section 234E of the Act was introduced to the statute w.e.f. 1st July 2012, however, no such corresponding amendment was made to section 200A of the Act empowering the authority concerned to levy fee under section234E of the Act while processing the TDS statements. Only by Finance Act, 2015, introduced w.e.f. 1st June 2015, clause (c) to section 200A(1) of 4 P.B. Construction Company the Act was introduced to the statute empowering the authority concerned to levy fee under section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS statement under section 200A of the Act. Therefore, prior to 1st June 2015, there was no specific provision under section 200A of the Act for levy of late filing fee. We have noted that different Benches of the Tribunal, including Mumbai Benches, have held that prior to 1st June 2015, provisions of section 200A of the Act did not contemplate levy of fee under section 234E of the Act. Therefore, it was held that for late filing of TDS statement for any period prior to 1st June 2015, no fee under section 234E of the Act can be levied. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of FATHERAJ SINGHVI & ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Kar), have also expressed identical view. In fact, the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in a recent decision in case of Emsons Exim Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO, ITA no.4406/Mum./2017 & Ors., dated 28th August 2019, by majority view, has held that levy of fee under section 234E of the Act cannot be made in respect of a period prior to 1st June 2015, while processing the TDS statement under section 200A of the Act. Though, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of RAJESH KOURANI vs. UNION OF INDIA & 4 (2017) 99 CCH 0098 (Guj) has expressed a contrary view, however, following the well settled legal principle that in case of conflicting views being expressed by the Courts on a particular issue, the view favourable to the assessee has to be taken, we are 5 P.B. Construction Company more inclined to follow the view expressed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of FATHERAJ SINGHVI & ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.(supra) and by the Tribunal in case of Emsons Exim Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Thus, we hold that since the periods for which fee under section 234E of the Act have been levied are prior to 1st June 2015, the authority concerned was not empowered to levy such fee while processing the TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. Accordingly, the levy of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act is hereby deleted.
In the result, appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.12.2019
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 →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026