ALMOND BLOSSOM DECORAZIONE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CPC TDS GHAZIABAD, MUMBAI

Briefly stated relevant facts of these cases are that AO passed assessment order u/s 200A of the Act in connection with levy of late filing fees for Quarter-3 and 4. In connection with the net payable for Quarter-3 works out to Rs. 53,720/- and for Quarter-4 is Rs. 29,260/-. These amounts include the interest on late payment amounting to Rs. 9,720/- for Quarter-3 and Rs. 9,255/- for Quarter-4. In connection with the above levy of the filing fees, assessee appealed to the first appellate authority.

During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, after considering the submissions of the assessee, CIT (A) dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

During the proceedings before us, at the outset, ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee does not press the demand sofaras the “interest on late fees for both the Quarters is concerned”. Accordingly, that part of the demand is sustained at the concession granted by the Ld Counsel for the assessee. 5. Regarding the balance of the demand raised u/s 200A of the Act, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the CIT (A) passed ex-parte and the CIT (A) has erroneously relied on the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia vs. Union of India, dated 9th February, 2015. No citation is given in the orders of the CIT (A). Further, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in the case of Kash Realtors Pvt Ltd. vs. Anr. Vs. ITO & Anr, (47 CCH 0523) (Mum. Trib) and the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Siddhi Vinayak Developers vs. DCIT, in & 2322/Ahd/2015, dated 14.10.2015. The cited decisions of the Tribunal are relevant for the proposition that while processing the statement u/s 200A of the Act, AO should not make any adjustment by levying fees u/s 234E of the Act for the period prior to 1.6.2015. Assessee was given relief in the said two cases relying on the decision of the ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of Smt. G. Indhirani & Others vs. DCIT in ITA No.109/Mad/2015 apart from other decisions. 6. After hearing both the parties, we find, the period involved in the present appeal falls prior to 1.6.2015. In our opinion, there is a need for examining closely the applicability of the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia (supra). Considering the above, we are of the opinion that this matter should be remanded to the file of the CIT (A) for fresh decision in the light of the above cited decisions of the Tribunal (supra) as well as the decision relied upon by the CIT (A) and after comparing the facts of the said cases to the facts of the present case. Assessee is also directed to ensure his appearance before the CIT (A) to avoid further ex-parte orders, if any. With the above directions, both the appeals