MANSI RINKESHKUMAR RATHOD,SURAT vs. ITO, TDS, WARD-1, SURAT

आदेश / O R D E R

PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the learned ACIT, CPC-TDS in issuing intimation u/s 200/206CB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in /AY.2019-20 Mansi Rinkeshkumar Rathod confirming the action of the learned ACIT, CPC-TDS in charging interest of Rs.25,512/- on default short payment of TDS.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the learned ACIT, CPC-TDS in charging late fees of Rs.66,166/- u/s 234E on late filing TDS Return.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the learned ACIT, CPC-TDS in generating default u/s 200A/206CB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.

, Statement of Facts and the submission of the appellant, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by relying on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in case of GMV Services vs. ACIT (CPC-TDS), Ghaziabad, in dated 05.12.2019. In the said decision, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of Shree Narayanana Guru Smaraka Sangam Upper Primary School vs. /AY.2019

20. Mansi Rinkeshkumar Rathod UOI & Ors., WP(C) No.30229 of 2013, dated 13.12.2016 and Rashmikant Kundalia vs. UOI, (2015) 54 taxmann.com 200 (Bombay).

5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the appellant has filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that interest was charged for short payment and late filing u/s 234E of the Act. He submitted that the delay in filing the return was due to death of the parents of the appellant. He has submitted copies of the death certificates at pages 3 and 4 of the paper book. He also relied on the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad in case of Kanta Govind Singh vs. ACIT, in dated 17.05.2023.

by the appellant are inter-connected and hence are decided together. There is no dispute that there was short payment of Rs.66,616/-. The ACIT, CPC has levied interest of Rs.25,512/- u/s 201(A)/206C(7) of the Act on /AY.2019

20. Mansi Rinkeshkumar Rathod short payment of Rs.66,616/-. He also levied late filing fees of Rs.66,616/- u/s 234E of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad in case of Kanta Govind Singh (supra), where levy of late filing fees of Rs.1,05,400/- u/s 234E of the Act on account of procedural error in filing TDS Form No.27Q was deleted. In the case, the ITAT has held that there was no lapse on the part of assessee while depositing the TDS amount to the treasury of Government of India. However, the Form 26Q could not be filed within the time. On the other hand, the CIT(A) has relied on decision in case of GMV Services (supra), wherein the fees imposed u/s 234E of the Act was upheld by relying on various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts cited supra. The ld. Sr. DR also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Rajesh Kourani (supra), where the petition of the appellant was dismissed on similar issue. He submitted that the above binding decision has not been considered by ITAT in case of Kanta Govind Singh (supra). The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the above case has elaborately discussed provisions of section 200A of the Act, before and after amendment to the said section w.e.f. 01.06.2015, Rule 31A of the IT Rules and held that section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing mechanism for processing a statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustment, which are arithmetical or prima facie in nature. With effect from 01.06.2015, this provision specifically provides for computing the fees payable u/s 234E of the Act. Section 234E of the Act is a charging provision creating a charge for levying fee certain default /AY.2019

20. Mansi Rinkeshkumar Rathod in filing the statements. Even in absence of section 200A of the Act, with introduction of section 234E, it was always open for revenue to demand and collect the fee for late filing of the statements. The Hon’ble Court dismissed the petition of the assessee. It is thus clear the Hon’ble Court has held that section 234E is a charging provision creating a charge for levying fee for certain defaults in filing statements, and fee prescribed u/s 234E could be levied even without a regulatory provision being found in section 200A for computation of fee. After considering the facts of the case and decision cited supra, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). Hence, the grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed and order of the CIT(A) is upheld.

8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 02/05/2025.