Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Punchsheel Nursing Home, filed TDS returns for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2013-14 (1st Quarter FY 2014-15) belatedly. The Assessing Officer processed the returns and levied a late fee under Section 234E and interest under Section 201(1A) and Section 220(2). The CIT(A) upheld these levies, prompting the assessee to appeal before the ITAT.
Held
The Tribunal, relying on previous decisions by coordinate benches and the Madras High Court, held that the fee under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to 01.06.2015. This is because the enabling provision, Section 200A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, was introduced with effect from 01.06.2015, making its application retrospective for earlier assessment years invalid. Consequently, the demand for late fee and associated interest for the periods in question was deleted.
Key Issues
Whether a late fee under Section 234E and associated interest under Sections 201(1A) and 220(2) can be legally levied for delayed filing of TDS returns pertaining to periods prior to 01.06.2015, given the prospective insertion of Section 200A(1)(c) into the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
234E, 154, 201(1A), 220(2), 200A, 200A(1)(c), 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
Assessee by None Revenue by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.12.2025 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, These two appeals are filed by the assessee against NFAC, Delhi dated 03.03.2025 for the A.Y’s 2015-16 and 2013-14 respectively in sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer in levying fee u/s.234E of the Act.
Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was moved and since the issue is very minor and is already adjudicated upon in various other cases we dispose of these appeals on hearing the Ld. DR.
The assessee has raised the following common grounds of appeal in both these appeals :-
1. Groundl. That in the fact and circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal under section 154 without appreciating the fact that late fee under section 234E was not applicable before 01/06/2015 where as the fact of the matter is that the return for the period under consideration was filled much prior to insertion of section 234E and the late fee imposed was liable to be quashed and setaside. That the late fee was not applicable in the case of the assessee.
2. Ground 2.That in the facts and circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not following the direction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in Circular No 19 of 2015 which clearly provides that the provision of Section 234E be applicable w.e.f 01/06/2015 and not for earlier Assessment Years. That the demand of late fee of Rs 11200/- so upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is absolutely illegal and against the mandate of circular issued by CBDT.
3. Ground 3.That in the facts and circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding interest of Rs 840 under section 201(1A). The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and fact.
4. Ground 4.That in the facts and circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding interest of Rs 1200 under section 220(2). The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and facts. Ground 5.That the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and facts and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
On perusal of the record we observe that the assessee has furnished the following submissions :
“Brief fact of the case for the FY 2014-15.1st Quarter Form 260 That the assessee is running a nursing home in the name and style of Punchsheel return of TDS in Form 260 for the Financial Year 2014-15 for the 1" Nursing Home Main Road Nagrota Bagwan Distt Kangra H.P. That the Quarter was filed by the assessee on 15/10/2014 and the due date for the filling of the TDS return for the FY 2014-15. 1th Quarter was 31/07/2014. That the said return was processed and demand for Rs 11200/- was created against the assessee on account of late filling of TDS return under section 234E and a further sum of Rs 840 under section 201(1A) and interest of Rs 1200/- under section 220(2) was created against the assessee under the Income Tax Act 1961 wad charged. That thereafter the assessee filed online rectification under section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and the said demand was not rectified and demand of Rs 11200/- Rs 840 and Rs 1200 was sustained against the assessee. That the assessee being aggrieved by the passing of the said order under section 154 r.w.s 200A of the Income Tax Act 1961 assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and also filed detailed submissions. That not finding favour with the contentions of the assessee/appellant the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. That being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the Id. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before this Hon'ble Forum on the following grounds of appeals: Ground 1. That in the fact and circumstance of the case the l.d. CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal under section 154 without appreciating the fact that late fee under section 234E was not applicable before 01/06/2015 where as the fact of the matter is that the return for the period under consideration was filled much prior to insertion of section 234E and the late fee imposed was liable to be quashed and setaside. That the late fee was not applicable in the case of the assessee.
2. That in the facts and circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not following the direction issued by the Page | 3 Central Board of Direct Taxes in Circular No 19 of 2015 which clearly provides that the provision of Section 234E be applicable w.e.f 01/06/2015 and not for earlier Assessment Years. That the demand of late fee of Rs 11200/- so upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is absolutely illegal and against the mandate of circular issued by CBDT.
3. That in the facts and circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding interest of Rs 840 under section 201(1A). The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and fact.
4. That in the facts and circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding interest of Rs 1200 under section 220(2). The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and facts.
5. That the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and facts and not sustainable in the eyes of law.”
Heard Ld. DR and also perused the submissions of the assessee placed on record. We observe that the issue in appeal as to whether fee u/s.234E can be levied prior to 01.06.2015 was the subject matter of adjudication before various courts and the Delhi Tribunal. In recent decision the Delhi Bench of ITAT in to 1598/Del/2023 for the A.Y.2013-14, 2015-16 and 2015-16 vide order dated 13.03.2024 following the coordinate Bench decision held that prior to 01.06.2015 no fee u/s.234E is chargeable observing as under :-
“3. On hearing learned representatives, it comes up that the sole issue, involved for adjudication in squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 15.02.2024, rendered in assessee's own case in for A.Y. 2015-16 (4th quarter/Form no 24Q). Therein, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal by deleting the late fee levied u/s 2348, inter alia, observing as under:
"6. Ld. AR has submitted that under section 200A of the Act, which deals with the manner in which the statement of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) shall be processed, the Authorities have no power to impose the late fee under section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013 to 2015- 16, since section 200A(1) (c) of the Act was introduced only with effect from 1-6-2015. Accordingly, any fee under Sec 234E could have been levied only prospectively, for periods beyond 01.06.2015, which is not the case of the case. Accordingly, the levy of fee on the assessee is invalid and thus, deserves to be deleted. It is submitted that no fee under Sec 234E of the Act can be levied before 01.6.2015. In this respect, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case True Blue Voice 1597 & 1598/Del/2023 India (P.) Ltd. Vs CCIT, [2024] 158 taxmann.com 67 (Madras). Ld AR referred to following observations of Hon'ble High Court in this judgment. "15. The learned counsel for the respondent advanced his arguments on the aspect of the imposition of late fee by applying section 200A(1) (c) of the Act retrospectively. This Court is not in agreement with the said submissions of the respondent. Since, there was no provision for imposing the late fee under section 234E of the Act while filing and processing the TDS returns under section 200A of the Act, clause (c) to sub-section (1) to section 200A was introduced with effect from 1- 7-2012. Therefore, the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is rejected by this Court.
In view of the above, it is made clear that the respondent had had imposed the late fee only under section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012- 2013, 2013-2014, 2015-2015. However, section 200A(L) (c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under section 200A of the Act, when they have processed the application for TDS under section 200A, no late fee can be imposed under section 234E. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court feels that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside."
6.1 Further reliance is placed on Amaravati vs ITO, High Court of Kerala, [2022] 142 taxmann.com 81 (Kerala); Atlas Brands (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT, High Court of Karnataka, [2022] 137 taxmann.com 191 (Karnataka); Franchise India Brands Ltd. Vs CPC, ITAT Delhi, [2020] 122 taxmann.com 196 (Delhi -Trib.) Govt. Girls Sr. Secondary School Vs ACIT, ITAT Delhi, [2020] 121 taxmann.com 170 (Delhi -Trib.) 7. In the light of aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the Ld.CIT(A) has fallen in error in sustaining the levy of penalty in ITA No.878/Del/2023......"
4. Ld. DR has defended the order of ld. Tax authorities on the same premises as emphasized, in hearing of the appeals for earlier quarters, but there being no change in facts and circumstances in the respective assessment period in question, 1597 & 1598/Del/2023 following earlier order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case (supra) in which one of us was also in quorum, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the late fee levied u/s 234E r.w.s. 200A of the Act for the respective quarters in question is deleted. Consequently, appeals of the assessee are allowed.”