SHRI SHANTILAL JAIN,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD
In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed
ITA 180/JAB/2018[2013-14(26Q, 4th Qtr.)]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur04 Apr 2019
Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14 Shanti Lal Jain V. Dcit Prop. Jain Advertising Agency Cpc, Tds Arya Samaj Market Ghaziabad Russel Chowk, Jabalpur Tan/Pan:Jbpso6909A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Advocate Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 04 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jabalpur, Dated 27/6/2018 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Taking The Following Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Passing The Order Ex-Parte On 26/6/2018 While The Counsel'S Junior Had Filed The Application For Adjournment On 21/6/2018 For Extension Of Hearing For Further 20 Days But He Passed The Order On 26/6/2018 In Undue Haste. 2. That The Id. A.O. (Tds-Cpc) Had Wrongly Levied A Late Fees Of Rs.16,800/-And Issued Order U/S 200A Of The Act. 3. That The Id. A.O. Has Charged The Late Fee Of Rs.16,800/- Without Sanction Of Law As Subsection (3) Of The Section 234E Of The Act States It Shall Be Paid Before Delivering A Tds Statement. It Means That Any Late Fees Should Have Been Deposited Just At
For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R
Section 156Section 190Section 200ASection 204Section 234ESection 285
285, this phrase does not cover
Section 234E, it means no one is responsible for default u/s 234E.
6. The Id. A.O. erred in passing the intimation u/s 200A of the Act which does not permit processing of TDS
