Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant-assessee, Opulent Auto Care Private Limited, experienced delays in filing E-TDS returns for several assessment years. Consequently, the CPC Ghaziabad levied fees under section 234E and interest under section 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, through an intimation under section 200A. The assessee contended that such fees could not be charged via intimation for defaults prior to 01.06.2015, challenging the CIT(A)'s orders which dismissed their appeals.
Held
The Tribunal, relying on previous judgments (Gajanan Constructions and Maharashtra Cricket Association), held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act by way of an intimation issued under section 200A for defaults occurring before 01.06.2015. The impugned orders confirming the levy of fees and interest were found unsustainable and therefore deleted.
Key Issues
Whether the Assessing Officer is empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, through an intimation issued under section 200A, for defaults that occurred prior to the amendment effective 01.06.2015.
Sections Cited
234E, 220, 200A, 154, 246A, 156, 250, 253
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE
Before: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’ble & Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Hon’ble Vice-
Per Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, President: All these appeals are filed by the assessee challenging separate orders dated 28.03.2024 passed by National faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [‘CIT(A)’ for short], thereby confirming the levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) and the consequential interest u/s. 220 of the said Act.
2 Opulent Auto Care Private Ltd.
For the sake of convenience, these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
The amount of fees levied u/s. 234E along with interest u/s. 220 of the Act, which are the subject matter of challenge in these appeals is set out as under: Sr. No. Appeal No. Late filing fees Interest Total 1 13000 11700 24700 13000 37335 50335 25200 26789 51989
The brief facts are that the appellant-assessee is a private limited company having its registered office at Pune. According to the appellant, the company was regularly deducting and depositing the tax deducted at source (TDS). However, there was certain delay in filing E-TDS returns u/s. 24Q/26Q of the Act for various quarters as set out below: Appeal No. AY & Quarter Due date Filed on for filing 2013-14(24Q-Q4) 15.05.2013 19.07.2 2013-14(26Q-Q4) 15.05.2013 19.07.2 2014-15(26Q-Q3) 15.01.2014 21.05.2014
The E-TDS return was processed and the CPC Ghaziabad on verification of the return, charged the fees u/s 234E of the Act as aforesaid alongwith interest as per intimation dated 19.10.2021. 4. According to the assessee there was no provision in the said Act to charge fees in intimation u/s. 200A prior to 01.06.2015. Accordingly, the appellant
3 Opulent Auto Care Private Ltd. filed revised E-TDS return seeking withdrawal/cancellation of the demand raised on account of the late filing fees and the consequential interest. The Assessing Officer refused to withdraw the fees along with interest vide an order dated 19.10.2021 u/s. 154 r.w.s. 200A of the said Act.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant challenged the same before the learned CIT(A). It was contended on behalf of the appellant that there were in all eight appeals filed before the CIT(A) against the order u/s. 154 r.w.s. 201 of the Act passed by CPC Ghaziabad, out of which three appeals came to be allowed by CIT(A) vide order dated 07.03.2023. It was therefore contended that on parity the appeals deserve to be allowed.
Reliance was placed on the order of Pune Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Gajanan Constructions [ITA No. 1292 & 1293/PN/2015 and Ors. decided on 23.09.2016]. The learned CIT(A) however, dismissed the appeals by impugned orders dated 28.03.2024. Hence, these appeals.
We have heard parties. Perused record.
At the outset, it is necessary to note that there is a delay of around 421 days in filing these appeals. The appellant has filed separate application seeking condonation of the same. It is contended that, the appellant had mentioned the email id as sagark@opulentindia.com in Form no.35 before the CIT(A). It was contended that although the notices for hearing of the appeals were issued on 23.02.2024 and 22.03.2024 were received by the appellant, the appellant was not in receipt of the impugned order, although the ITBA portal mentioned that the impugned order was sent on the same email id. It was contended that it was only in July 2025 when the company received a demand recovery notice, it was realized that the appeal was decided on 20.03.2024 after which steps were taken to file these appeals promptly on 22.07.2025. It was 4 Opulent Auto Care Private Ltd.
contended that the delay has occurred on account of circumstances beyond the control of the appellant and there was no negligence in filing the appeals.
Upon hearing the parties, we find that the appellant has made out sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. It is significant to note that after the demand notice was received in July 2025, the appeals came to be filed with necessary promptitude on 22.07.2025. Thus, the delay deserves to be condoned. Ordered accordingly.
On merits, the learned AR submitted that out of the eight appeals filed before the CIT(A), three appeals came to be allowed in favour of the appellant and, thus, the CIT(A) was obliged to follow the decision in assessee’s own case as the decision was rendered on identical facts. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Gajanan Constructions (supra) and the judgment of Karnataka High Court dated 26th Aug., 2016 in the case of Shri Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India & Ors. in Writ Appeal Nos. 2663-2674/2015 and Ors.
The learned DR has supported the impugned order.
Upon hearing the parties, we find that the issue may not detain us long, as it is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Gajanan Constructions (supra). The precise issue is whether there was authority to charge fees u/s. 234E of the Act prior to the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) of the Act, vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, while processing the TDS returns. The Division Bench of this Tribunal, to which one of us (Shri R K Panda, then Accountant Member) was a party, relied upon earlier order dated 29.09.2016 in a batch of appeals in Maharashtra Cricket Association vs. DCIT in & 561/PN/2016 and Ors, and has held that the Assessing Officer is not empowered to charge fees u/s. 234E of the Act by way of intimation issued u/s. 200A of Act, in respect of defaults before 01.06.2015.
5 Opulent Auto Care Private Ltd.
The following observations in para 37 of the order in the case Maharashtra Cricket Association vs. DCIT (supra) are relevant for the purpose: ““37. Now, coming to the connected issue raised by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee by way of ground of appeal No.1 that whether any appeal is maintainable against the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act and / or order passed under section 154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act by Assessing Officer in charging the fees under section 234E of the Act. Both the learned Authorized Representatives have raised varied arguments in respect of said issue and the learned CIT-DR has referred to the order of CIT(A), who had held that no appeal is maintainable against the order of Assessing Officer passed while processing the TDS returns / statements and charging of fees under section 234E of the Act. Without going into various aspects of the issue, we make reference to the Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 2015, under which the heading was rationalization of provisions relating to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) and Tax Collection at Source (TCS). The said memorandum categorically recognized that under the existing provisions of the Act, after processing of TDS statements, an intimation is generated specifying the amount payable or refundable. It was further noted that this intimation generated after 36 processing TDS statement is (i) subject to rectification under section 154 of the Act; (ii) appealable under section 246A of the Act; and (iii) deemed as notice of payment under section 156 of the Act. Under the amendment, similar position was given to the processing of TCS statements. In other words, the Legislature recognizes that a deductor who has filed his statement of tax deducted at source, which in turn, has been processed by the Assessing Officer and intimation is generated under which, if any amount is found to be payable, then such intimation generated after processing of TDS returns is subject to rectification under section 154 of the Act and / or is also appealable under section 246A of the Act, since the demand issued by the Assessing Officer is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156 of the Act. Since the intimation in question issued by the Assessing Officer was appealable order under section 246A(1)(a) of the Act, therefore, the CIT(A) should have examined the legality of adjustment made under intimation issued under section 200A of the Act. The CIT(A) has rejected the present set of appeals on the surmise that first of all, no appeal is provided
6 Opulent Auto Care Private Ltd. against the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) has also decided the issue on merits and the assessee is in appeal before us on both these grounds. Vis-à-vis the first issue of maintainability of appeal against the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act, we hold that such intimation issued by the Assessing Officer after processing the TDS returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard. We find support from the similar proposition being laid down by Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in bunch of cases with lead order in M/s. Kash Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in relating to assessment year 2013-14, consolidated order dated 27.07.2016, which had also decided the 37 issue of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act in favour of the assessee following the decisions of other Benches of Tribunal. Once intimation issued under section 200A(1) of the Act is appealable order before the CIT(A) under section 246A(1)(a) of the Act, then such appealable order passed by the CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act is further appealable before the Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing returns / statements in the paras hereinabove and in view thereof, we hold that the Assessing Officer is not empowered to charge the fees under section 234E of the Act by way of intimation issued under section 200A of the Act in respect of defaults before 01.06.2015, we allow the claim of assessee on both the aspects. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, allowed.” (Emphasis supplied)
13. It is significant to note that out of the eight appeals filed by the appellant before the CIT(A), three appeals viz. NFAC/2011-12/10062035, 10062036 and NFAC/2012-13/110071749 have already been allowed by NFAC, vide order dated 07.03.2023. Considering the overall circumstances, we find that the 7 Opulent Auto Care Private Ltd. impugned orders cannot be sustained. The appeals are accordingly allowed, deleting the imposition of fees and the consequent interest. Ordered accordingly. Order pronounced via video conferencing on 4th February, 2026.