Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These four appeals filed by the assessee are against the common order of Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 all dated 21.11.2023. Since issue involved is same, all these appeals were heard together and decided by this consolidated order. We treat appeal in for A.Y.2013-14, as a lead case. The assessee for A.Y.2013-14 has raised the following grounds of appeal : to 131/PUN/2024 (04 Appeals) Vidya Sunil Mane [A] “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the late fee levied by the AO u/s 200A read with section 234E of the Act Rs 26400/- for the period prior to 01/06/2015 through the processing of TDS statement by way of Intimation.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the decisions of jurisdictional tribunal referred by the assessee and Ld CIT(A) also ought to have considered the decision favourable to assessee in case of conflicting decisions.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the Interest u/s 220(2) of the Act Rs 21562/-.
The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal
without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” Findings & Analysis :
2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We are discussing hereonwards.
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 to 131/PUN/2024 (04 Appeals) Vidya Sunil Mane [A] 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 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).
2.4 No direct decision on the impugned issue of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has been brought to our notice. In these facts and circumstances of the case, when there are contrary decisions of different Hon’ble High Courts, in the absence of decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, the decision which is favourable to the assessee needs to be followed; as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vegetable to 131/PUN/2024 (04 Appeals) Vidya Sunil Mane [A] Products Limited [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC). The decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court(supra) was followed by ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, vs. DCIT, CPC(TDS) [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78.
2.5 In this case, Late Fee under section 234E has been levied for F.Y.2012-13. Admittedly,assessee had filed TDS Return on 24.09.2013 which is before 01.06.2015. Therefore, respectfully following the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, Hon’ble Kerala High Court and ITAT Pune Bench(supra) it is held that Late Fee levied under section 234E in the case of the assessee for the period prior to 01.06.2015 is bad-in-law. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the Late Fee levied under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No.1 and 2 of the assessee are allowed.
2.1 The ld.AR has not argued Ground No.3 which is related to interest under section 220(2) of the Act. According, Ground No.3 is dismissed.
2.2 The Ground No.4 is general in nature and does not need adjudication, hence dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed. to 131/PUN/2024 (04 Appeals) Vidya Sunil Mane [A] ITA Nos.129, 130 & 131/PUN/2024 : 4. Since we have already discussed the issue at length and the facts of are similar to the facts of ITA Nos.129/PUN/2024 to ITA No.131/PUN/2024, therefore, our decision in ITA No.128/PUN/2024 shall apply mutatis mutandis to these three appeals also, accordingly, grounds of appeals raised by the assessee in both appeals of ITA Nos.129/PUN/2024 to ITA No.131/PUN/2024 are Partly Allowed.
In the result, appeals of the assessee in to ITA No.131/PUN/2024 are Partly Allowed.
To sum up, four appeals of the assessee in to ITA No.131/PUN/2024 are Partly Allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th March, 2024.