A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (FATEHPUR) LIMITED,. vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), .
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that various judicial precedents, including decisions of other tribunals, have held that section 234E of the Act is not applicable to assessment years prior to June 1, 2015. The Tribunal followed these precedents and found no valuable guidance from the jurisdictional High Court to the contrary.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals arise from orders levying late fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The assessee contended that the levy was unjustified. The Revenue argued for the retrospective applicability of the provision.
What were the issues?
Whether the levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is applicable for periods prior to 01.06.2015.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(5)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.
- Conceria International (P.) Ltd. v. ITO25 citing464 ITR 92 · 2024 · HC
- Lingeshwara Creations v. PCIT20 citing168 Taxmann.com 383 · 2024 · HC
- 383 (Mad.), Nila Bakers and Confectionaries (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO11 citing139 Taxmann.com 535 · 2022 · HC
- Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Vegetable Products Ltd.7 citing80 ITR 14 · 1971 · HC
- Vkare Bio Sciences (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT6 citing134 Taxmann.com 7 · 2022
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER PER BENCH: These assessee’s five appeals 3299, 3300, 3301 & 3302/Del/2025, for assessment years 2015-16, 2013-14, 2013- 14, 2014-15, 2014-15 & 2014-15, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders, all dated 21.03.2025, having DINs and orders no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074831584(1), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074830299(1), ITBA/NFAC/S/250 /2024-25/1074829433(1), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/ 1074830787(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074831139(1), involving proceedings under section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s/appellant behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
We next note with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the assessee’s “lead” appeal raises the following substantive grounds: 1. That on the facts and circumstances in law, the Ld. AO is not justified in levying the late fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the period prior to 01.06.2015.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal.
Learned departmental representative vehemently argues that in light of the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion placing reliance upon the case law Conceria International Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 464 ITR 92 (Mad.) that both the lower authorities herein have rightly levied section 234E late filing fee in the assessee’s/deductor’s cases. And that the impugned statutory provision has already been held applicable in all preceding period before 01.06.2015 as well in their lordships’ decision.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective pleadings. We note that in various other judicial precedents i.e. Lingeswara Creations vs. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. (2024) 168 taxmann.com 383 (Mad.), Nila Bakers and Confectionaries (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2022) 139 taxmann.com 535 (Ker) as well as this tribunal’s in Vkare Bio Sciences (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2022] 134 taxmann.com 7 (Delhi - Trib.) have adjudicated the very issue in the assessee’s favour thereby holding that the above filing fee provision in section 234E of the Act does not cover any assessment year prior to 01.06.2015. No valuable guidance has admittedly come from hon’ble jurisdictional
3 | P a g e high court. That being the case, we hereby quote Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1971] 80 ITR 14 (Kol.) to decide the instant issue of retrospective applicability of section 234E of the Act in assessee’s favour in very terms to delete the impugned late filing fee levied by both the learned lower authorities. This appeal is allowed. Same order to follow in the assessee’s remaining four appeals 3300, 3301 & 3302/Del/2025.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- A2Z Waste Management (Fatehpur) Limited… vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…Delhi14 Jan 2026Allowed
The Tribunal noted that various judicial precedents, including decisions of other tribunals, have held that section 234E of the Act is not applicable to assessment years prior to June 1, 2015. The Tribunal followed these...
- Shri Nirmal Rajendra Jagetiya, Jamnagar vs The ITO (TDS-3), JamnagarRajkot13 Jan 2025Allowed
Also relies on 383 (Mad.), Nila Bakers and Confectionaries (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to collect TCS as the buyer had furnished Form 27C. Consequently, the assessee was not required to file Form 27EQ, and thus, the levy of late fees under Section 234E was...
- Batra Exports, Fazilka vs DCIT, |TDS, LudhianaChandigarh7 Feb 2024Allowed
Also relies on 383 (Mad.), Nila Bakers and Confectionaries (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which empowers the Assessing Officer to levy fees, was amended prospectively effective from June 1, 2015. Since the TDS returns were filed before this date, the fee under Section 234E...
- Kaushalya Infrastructure Development… vs I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), KolkataKolkata13 Apr 2026Allowed
Also relies on Lingeshwara Creations v. PCIT
The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under section 234E for periods before June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the enabling provision (section 200A(1)(c)) was introduced later. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisi...
- Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Ratnagiri vs Income-Tax Officer, Circle -1, KolhapurPune23 Jan 2026Allowed
Also relies on Lingeshwara Creations v. PCIT
The Tribunal acknowledged conflicting High Court decisions but, in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court ruling, opted to follow the view favorable to the assessee. Citing judgments from the Karnataka, Kerala, and M...
More judgments on Section 200A
- 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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026