SHRI GOPICHAND P PANJWANI,AKOLA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANG-1, NAGPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E was not imposable for the period prior to June 1, 2015, following High Court decisions. However, for periods on or after June 1, 2015, the fee was correctly levied.
What were the facts?
The appeals concerned the levy of fees for default in furnishing statements under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act. The issue revolved around whether the fee was applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the applicability of Section 234E fees for defaults in furnishing TDS/TCS statements before June 1, 2015.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v. UOI614 citing440 ITR 26 · 2022 · HC
- Jiji Varghese v. ITO(TDS) & Ors.220 citing443 ITR 267 · 2022 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL, HON. VICE- & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, HON.
Assessee by : Shri Sanjay Thakar,Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Agrawal, DR Date of hearing : 24/08/2023 Date of pronouncement : 29/08/2023 O R D E R Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:
These appeals preferred by the different assessees emanate from the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short, ‘CIT(A)’]-2, Nagpur, all dated 14.12.2018 for A.Ys.2015-16 & 2016-17 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
2. All these matters pertains to the solitary issue of levy of fee for -138/NAG/2019 Gopichand P. Panjwani & Ano. default in furnishing statements u/sec. 234E of the Act in respect of statement referred to in sub-section (3) of sec. 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of sec. 206C. Since the facts and circumstances and issues in these appeals are absolutely similar and identical, all the matters were heard together and disposed off vide this consolidated order.
3. We observe that the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v. UOI & Ors. (2022) 440 ITR 26 (Ker.) has confirmed the non-imposition of fee for the period prior to 01/06/2015. Similar view has been taken in JIJI Varghese v. ITO (TDS) (2022) 443 ITR 267 (Ker.) holding that no interest u/sec. 234E can be imposed for the period of respective assessment years prior to June 01, 2015. In that regard, we observe in pertains to F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16, the said decisions will squarely apply. Similarly, ITA No.137/NAG/2019 for F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to the A.Y. 2015-16 will also be covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid decisions.
4. Respectfully following the aforestated decisions, the cases of the assessees in & 137/NAG/2019 are decided in favour of the assessees and these appeals are allowed. However, in F.Y. 2015-16 relevant to A.Y. 2016-17 and the levying of fees after or from 01/06/2015 is covered within the financial year itself. Similarly in ITA No.138/NAG/2019 also pertains 2 -138/NAG/2019 Gopichand P. Panjwani & Ano. to F.Y. 2015-16 relevant to A.Y. 2016-17 wherein it is observed that fee u/sec. 234E has been rightly levied from or after 01/06/2015 within the financial year itself. Therefore, in respect of these two appeals of the assessees, the above judicial pronouncements will not be applicable, and as observed by us, the fee u/sec. 234E has been correctly levied by the Department. Resultantly, these two appeals of the assessees are dismissed.
In the combined result, appeals filed by the assessees in & 137/NAG/2019 are allowed and in ITA Nos.136 & 138/NAG/2019 are dismissed.
Order pronounced in open Court on 29th August, 2023.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- New High School, Aurangabad vs ACIT Centralized Processing Cell -TDS…Pune26 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on Jiji Varghese v. ITO(TDS) & Ors. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 200A(c) for levying late fees under section 234E is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date. The matter was rest...
- Vidhyasagar Girls High School, Tamsa vs ITO TDS, NandedPune12 Feb 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on Jiji Varghese v. ITO(TDS) & Ors. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c), which introduced the levy of late fees under Section 234E, is prospective in nature, effective from 01.06.2015. Therefore, late fees can only be calculated for ...
- Shrikrishna Laxminarayan Thakur, Sindhudurga vs Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward, Kollhapur…Pune23 Jan 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Jiji Varghese v. ITO(TDS) & Ors. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2015, effective from 01.06.2015, is prospective. Therefore, fee u/s.234E can only be levied for defaults committed ...
- Shri Gopichand P Panjwani, Akola vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax…Nagpur29 Aug 2023Partly Allowed
Also relies on Jiji Varghese v. ITO(TDS) & Ors. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E was not imposable for the period prior to June 1, 2015, following High Court decisions. However, for periods on or after June 1, 2015, the fee was correctly levied.
- M/S Sricon Logistics Pvt.Ltd., Nagpur vs ACIT -TDS, Circle-1, NagpurNagpur23 Aug 2023Partly Allowed
Also relies on Jiji Varghese v. ITO(TDS) & Ors. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that Section 234E of the Act, which allows for the levy of late fees, was inserted with effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could only be levied for defaults committed after this date. For periods...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026