YASHASHREE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the intimation of pending demand is not an appealable order under Section 246(1A) of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an intimation demanding late fees under Section 234E for failure to deliver TDS statements on time. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether an intimation of pending demand is an appealable order under the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 234E,Section 200(3),Section 206C(3),Section 246(1A),Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
order of CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 27-06-2023 u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2014-15.
When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee and after hearing the ld. DR.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad issued an intimation u/s 200A r.w.s.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2015-16 levying late fee for four Assessment Years namely; 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 under the provisions of section 234E at Rs.21,600/-. It was stated that the appellant had failed to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in section 200(3)/206C(3) of the Act and made liable for late fees. Being aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order, chose to dismiss the appeal.
Being aggrieved by the above decision of the NFAC, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that the assessee had filed the present appeal impugning letter dt. 09-08-2018 intimating demand issued by the ITO, TDS-3. The appellant filed the appeal against the intimation of pending demand which is not an appealable order u/s.246(1A) of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal as not appealable. Accordingly, appeal of the appellant is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 28th day of February, 2024.
More judgments on Section 234E
- Mulchand Ramkishan Laddha, Pune vs Income Tax Officer (TDS-2), PuneITA 874/PUN/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2669/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2668/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2667/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2666/PUN/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026