NLDK TIMBERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer/CPC was not authorized to levy late filing fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was effective from that date.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed TDS statements beyond the prescribed time for certain quarters of FY 2012-13 and 2013-14. The CPC levied late filing fees under Section 234E, which the assessee objected to via rectification applications and subsequent appeals, but these were rejected.
What were the issues?
Whether the Assessing Officer can levy late filing fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, while processing TDS statements under Section 200A.
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.
- CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.2,664 citing88 ITR 192 · 1973 · SC
- Kourani v. Union OF India1,708 citing83 Taxmann.com 137 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE- & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
& 1415 /Del/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 NLDK Timbers Pvt. Ltd., Versus DCIT, Circle 11(1), C-5/42, Safdarjung Development New Delhi. Area, New Delhi PAN: AABCN0913B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Prekshit Mehra, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 28.08.2023 Date of pronouncement: 28.08.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.
Present appeals have been filed by the assessee against two separate orders, both dated 10.08.2021, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi pertaining to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15.
The common dispute arising in the appeals relates to levy of late filing fee under section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Briefly, the facts are, for various quarters of financial years 2012-13 and 2013-14, the assessee filed its TDS statements in terms of section 200 of the Act. While processing the TDS statements under section 200A of the Act, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), having found that the TDS statements were furnished beyond prescribed time limit, levied fee under section 234E of the Act in terms of section 200A(1)(c) of the Act. Though, the assessee filed applications under section 154 of the Act objecting to levy of fee under section 234E of the Act and seeking rectification thereof, however, the applications were rejected. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before learned first appellate authority.
However, while deciding the appeals, learned first appellate authority upheld the levy of fee under section 234E of the Act.
Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer had no authority to levy fee under section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. Thus, he submitted, in absence of any enabling provision under section 200A prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer could not have levied fee under section 234E of the Act for any quarter falling prior to 01.06.2015. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions :
(i). Fatehraj Singhvi & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. [Writ Appeal Nos. 2663-2674/2015(T-IT)] (ii). ICMC Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. ITD, CPC (ITA Nos. 1361 to 1374/Del/2021 & Ors. – Order dated 25.02.2022) (iii). Bathline India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS (ITA No. 9336 to 9341/Del/2019 – order dated 31.08.2020).
Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of learned first appellate authority.
We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. The short issue arising for consideration before us in the present appeals is, whether, the Assessing Officer is competent to levy late filing fee under section 234E of the Act for any period prior to 01.06.2015 while processing the TDS statement under section 200A of the Act. On a careful reading of section 234E and section 200A of the Act together, we have noticed that though, section 234E of the Act providing for levy of late filing fee was introduced to the Statute by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012, however, there was no enabling provision under section 200A of the Act, vesting authority on the Assessing Officer to levy such fee while processing the TDS statement. By virtue of an amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, clause (c) was introduced to sub-section (1) of section 200A, which enabled the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. In case of Fatehraj Singhvi vs. Union of India (supra) the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held that since, the introduction of clause (c) to section 200A(1) was effective from 01.06.2015, no late filing fee under section 234E can be imposed for a period prior to 01.06.2015. Though, we are conscious of a contrary view expressed by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in case of Rajesh Rajeev Kourani vs. Union of India, 83 taxmann.com 137, however, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. M/s. Vegetable Products Limited, 88 ITR 192, in case, there are conflicting decisions on identical issue, the view favourable to the assessee has to be taken. Following the aforesaid age old legal principle, the coordinate Bench in case of ICMC Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITD, CPC (supra) and Bathline India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) has held that no fee under section 234E can be charged for any period prior to 01.06.2015 while processing the TDS statement under section 200A of the Act. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of the coordinate Bench, as also the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Fatehraj Singhvi vs. UOI (supra), we hold that since the periods involved in the present appeals are falling prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer/CPC was not authorised to levy fee under section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS statements filed by the assessee. Accordingly, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee. Grounds are allowed.
In the result, appeals are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28/08/2023.
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 →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026