BLUE RIVER REALTY PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are dismissed

TDS, Gaziabad, the Assessing Officer has levied fees u/s. 234E of the Act for delay in furnishing the submission of tax deduction at source and levied fees u/s. 234E of the Act to the amount of Rs. 89,065/- 4. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

ANUKOOL FURNITURE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2015-16 Anukool Furniture Pvt Ltd Acit, B-12, Doctor House, Nr. Parimal Vs Cpc-Tds, Railway Crossing, Ellisbridge, Ghaziabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aabca 6053 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "त् यथ" "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "त् "त् यथ" यथ" Assessee By : Shri Bharat Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2021 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Rajpal Yadav: The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A) In Short] Dated 25Th January 2019 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.74,000/- Which Was Imposed Under Section 234E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. With The Assistance Of The Learned Representatives, We Have Gone Through The Record Carefully. It Emerges Out From The Record That The Assessee Failed To Submit Its Tds Return Well In Time During The Accounting Period Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. Therefore, A Penalty Under Section 234E Of The Act Amounting To Rs.74,000/- Was Imposed Upon The Assessee. Anukool Furniture Pvt Ltd Vs. Acit Ay : 2015-16 2

TDS statements and it has been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani V. Union Of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Gujarat) that a machinery provision cannot override the substantive provision of law. The relevant part of judgment is reproduced as below: "19. In plain terms, section 200A of the Act is machinery