DR KHANADE HOSPITAL,PUNE vs. PUNE.ITO 1, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 452/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 June 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI S.S.GODARA (Judicial Member), DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the late fee levied under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is bad in law. Following the decisions of the Karnataka High Court, Kerala High Court, and ITAT Pune Bench, the levy was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a TDS return for FY 2012-13 on March 6, 2013. The Assessing Officer levied late fee under Section 234E. The assessee appealed this levy, arguing that Section 234E was not applicable before June 1, 2015.

What were the issues?

Whether late fee under Section 234E is applicable for TDS returns filed before June 1, 2015. The applicability of Section 200A for computing such fees before the amendment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai – DR
Hearing: 11/06/2024Pronounced: 12/06/2024

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)[NFAC] dated 29.02.2024 for the A.Y.2013-14(Q3.) The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. As the TDS Return was Filed on 06-Mar-2013 and the FY is 2012/13, the Provisions of Section 234E Were not Applicable to the said TDS Return. The Provisions of Sec 234E Cannot be Applied for a Period Before

1. June 2015. for A.Y.2013-14(Q3) Dr.Khanade Hospital [A]

2. The Assessee Relies on Pune ITAT Decisions in (a) Envision- Landmarks-LLP-Vs-TDS-ITAT-Pune(ITA Nos.404 to 406/PUN/2023)(b) M.E.S.-High-School-Vs-ITO-ITAT-Pune (ITA Nos.96 & 97/PUN/2023.

3.

Any Other Relevant Ground Emerging during the course of Appellate Proceedings.”

2.

At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.

Findings &Analysis : 2.1 The issue involved in this case is whether late fee under section 234E can be levied for F.Y.2012-13. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) in para 8 of the order, upheld the order levying late fee under section 234E following decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani 83 taxmann.com 137. 2.2 We are aware of the fact that there are contrary decisions on this issue. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India 289 CTR 0602(Kar) held in favour of assessee as under : “23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period A.Y.2013-14(Q3) Dr.Khanade Hospital [A] prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid.

24.

………………..In view of the reasons recorded by us hereinabove, when the amendment made under Section 200A of the Act which has come into effect on 1.6.2015 is held to be having prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for the fee under Section 234E could be made for the TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent-authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent.”

2.3 The decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court was followed by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2022] 134 taxmann.com 111 (Kerala).

More judgments on Section 234E

All 4,792 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234E →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →