DIGP GC CRPF,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 303/NAG/2022Status: HeardITAT Nagpur18 July 2023AY 2019-2022Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E is a fixed charge for extra service due to late filing and is not punitive. The provisions do not empower condonation of delay or provide for an appeal against such orders.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against orders levying late fees under Section 234E for delayed filing of TDS returns. The appeals were filed for multiple assessment years.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the levy of late fee under Section 234E for delayed TDS return filing and the maintainability of appeals against such levies.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR – VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani
For Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur
Hearing: 17.07.2023Pronounced: 18.07.2023

ORDER PER BENCH : These bunch of fourteen (14) appeals preferred by the assessee for the various assessment years mentioned in the caption emanates from the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] levying late fee u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for delay in filing the TDS returns.

More judgments on Section 234E

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →