ARJUNA REDDIAR PEDHA REDDIAR,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO TDS, ALAPPUZHA

These five appeals filed by the assessee are against the orders of the Ld.CIT(A)-Kottyam, dt.18-09-2020 for the FYs.2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18, against confirmation of levy of fee u/s.234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

It was submitted by the Ld.AR that admittedly there was a delay in filing the quarterly return of TDS u/s.200(3) of the Act. It was the submission that the delay was on account of the fact that the assessee was more than 83 years old and he was also having health problems related to old age. It was the prayer that considering the age of the assessee and his health ailments, the fee

In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). She has also placed before us the decision of Hon’ble co- ordinate Bench of ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Child Development Project Office-Shrinagar, in dt.19-08-2020, wherein similar levy u/s.234E of the Act in respect of the default committed after 01-06-2015 has been confirmed by the Tribunal. It was the submission that old age or health ailments nor the claim of reasonable cause can be considered in respect of the fee u/s.234E of the Act.

We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the levy u/s.234E of the Act in the present cases is in respect of defaults committed under the provisions of Section 200(3) of the Act for the period after 01-06-2015. The fee u/s.234E of the Act is mandatory fee for the delay. Admittedly, there was no provision for reasonable cause as provided under the Act. We find no error in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the fee levied u/s.234E.

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed.