SUN HOSPITLITY AND SERVICE APARTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAILZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-60, Mumbai dated 18.05.2018 for the A.Y 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its statements in Forms 24Q for Q1 to Q4 for F.Y 2014- 15 relevant to A.Y 2015-16. On verification of this

ITA No. 5322//Mum/2018. Sun Hospitality and Service Apartments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. - 2 - statement, the AO noticed that the assessee filed the statement, belatedly and hence, raised a demand on account of late filing levy u/s 234E by issuing intimations u/s 200A. 3. Against the said action of AO, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) raising a ground that the provisions to include late fee u/s 234E in ‘Intimation u/s 200A is not permissible under law and consequently such levy is unsustainable in law and hence the levy is liable to be deleted. 4. Before the CIT(A), the AR of the assessee contended that the provisions to include late fee u/s 234E in the intimation u/s 200A of the Act came into effect only through the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01/06/2015 and, hence, prior to 01/06/2015 such inclusion of late fee u/s 234E in the intimation u/s 200A is not permissible under the law. In this contention, he relied on various case law, which were extracted by the CIT(A). 5. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the late filing levy u/s 234E of the Act.

ITA No. 5322//Mum/2018. Sun Hospitality and Service Apartments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. - 3 - 6. Aggrieved by the orders of CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeals before us raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. For that the CIT(A)-60, Mumbai dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The brief facts of the case are that in all the above appeals under consideration, admittedly there was a delay in filing of TDS statement and during the processing of TDS return, the AO (TDS) raised demand by way of intimations issued u/s 200A of the Act for levy of fees u/s 234E for delay filing of TDS statements for Quarter 1 to 4 in the A.Y 2015-16 and passed order dated 01.10.2015. 2. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after considering the grounds of appeal of the assessee has dismissed the appeals. 3. Now, the assessee is in further appeals before your hounour as this issue is no longer re integra since the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi V. union of Inida (289 CTR 0602) has held that w.e.f 01.06.2015, the Parliament by way of an amendment to Sec. 200A of the Act, has empowered the AO to levy fee u/s 234E of the Act while processing u/s 200A of the Act. 4. Therefore, prior to that date i.e 01.06.2015, the AO had no authority to levy fee u/s 234E of the Act. Therefore, the AO erred in levying the fee u/s 234E of the Act which been wrongly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) need to deleted”. 7. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and this issue is in favour of assessee. Hence, taken up for disposal of the same by hearing the Ld. DR. Considered the submissions of the Ld. DR and perused the material on record. We find that similar issue came up for consideration before the coordinate bench of Hyderabad

ITA No. 5322//Mum/2018. Sun Hospitality and Service Apartments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. - 4 - Tribunal in the case of M/s Terra Infra Development Ltd., Hyderabad in ITA Nos. 1876 & 1875/Hyd/2017 for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, order dated 03/10/2018 wherein the coordinate bench has held as under:

ITA No. 5322//Mum/2018. Sun Hospitality and Service Apartments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. - 5 - Court held that levy of fees u/s 234E while processing returns, TDS u/s 200A prior to 01.06.2015 was without any authority of law. With two divergent view of the Hon'ble High Courts on the issue and in the absence of any decision by the jurisdictional High Court, we concur with the learned Counsel for the assessee that as per the well accepted rule of construction, if two reasonable constructions of a statute are possible the construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. In view of the same, respectfully following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi (Supra), we hold that the fees levied in all the present cases u/s 234E prior to 01.06.2015 in the intimations made u/s 200A was without authority of law and the same is therefore, directed to be deleted. In view of the above, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed". 5. Respectfully following the same, assessee's appeals for both the A.Ys are allowed.” 7.1 In the case under consideration, on perusal of record, we find that the TDS returns filed by the assessee for the relevant period i.e., FY 2014-15 Quarter - 4 was prior to 01/06/2015. Therefore, respectfully following the said decision of the coordinate bench, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the fees levied u/s 234E.

ITA No. 5322//Mum/2018. Sun Hospitality and Service Apartments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. - 6 - 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 10/12/2019

Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN ) (RAVISH SOOD) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 10/12/2019 KRK, PS आदेश की प्रनिलिपि अग्रेपर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. ववभागीय प्रतततनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, सत्यावपत प्रतत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहधयक िंजीकधर ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अधर्करण, अहमदधबधद / ITAT, Mumbai

Other Member… 2. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S…………….. 3. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement…… 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S…….18.1.18 7. Date on which thees to the Head Clerk…………