PADMA PARAKH, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.560, 561 & 562/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Padma Parakh Parakh Nursing Home, Lal Bagh, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) Pan: Ajqpp8601H

TDS) ITA Nos. 560, 561 & 562/RPR/2025 234E, Section 271H and the aforesaid proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that, the fee provided under Section 234E is contemplated to give a privilege to the defaulter to come out from the rigors of penalty provision under Section 271H (1

PADMA PARAKH, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.560, 561 & 562/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Padma Parakh Parakh Nursing Home, Lal Bagh, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) Pan: Ajqpp8601H

TDS) ITA Nos. 560, 561 & 562/RPR/2025 234E, Section 271H and the aforesaid proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that, the fee provided under Section 234E is contemplated to give a privilege to the defaulter to come out from the rigors of penalty provision under Section 271H (1

TOUCHSTONE SERVICES P. LTD.,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), DURG

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.68 & 69/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Touchstone Services P. Ltd., V The Income Tax C/O.Uday Raj Parakh, S Officer(Tds), Bhilai, “Mangaldeep”, G.E.Road, Ground Floor, Aayakar Rajnandgaon (C.G.) – 491441 Bhawan, New Civic Centre, Pan: Aacct 6932 F Bhilai, Dist. Durg(C.G) – 490006. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri G.N.Singh – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee I.E. Touchstone Services Pvt. Ltd., For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] Dated 05.08.2021. Both These Appeals Were Clubbed, Heard Together & Disposed Of By A Common Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Take The Appeal No.68/Rpr/2021 For A.Y.2013-14 Treated As Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2013-14 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Demand Raised In Respect Of Levying Fee U/S 234E In Intimation U/S 200A For Default In Furnishing Tds Statements So Far As Period Prior To 01.06.2015 By Ignoring Binding Decisions Of Hon’Ble Jurisdictional It At, Raipur Bench In Cases Of "Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank & Others Vs. Ito (Tds) Dt. 23.06.2016 Reported In (2016) 29 Itj 310" And

section 234E in the course of processing of TDS returns and intimation u/s 200A(1) for the F.Y. 2012/13 (A.Y. 2013/14

TOUCHSTONE SERVICES P. LTD.,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BHILAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.68 & 69/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Touchstone Services P. Ltd., V The Income Tax C/O.Uday Raj Parakh, S Officer(Tds), Bhilai, “Mangaldeep”, G.E.Road, Ground Floor, Aayakar Rajnandgaon (C.G.) – 491441 Bhawan, New Civic Centre, Pan: Aacct 6932 F Bhilai, Dist. Durg(C.G) – 490006. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri G.N.Singh – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee I.E. Touchstone Services Pvt. Ltd., For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] Dated 05.08.2021. Both These Appeals Were Clubbed, Heard Together & Disposed Of By A Common Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Take The Appeal No.68/Rpr/2021 For A.Y.2013-14 Treated As Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2013-14 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Demand Raised In Respect Of Levying Fee U/S 234E In Intimation U/S 200A For Default In Furnishing Tds Statements So Far As Period Prior To 01.06.2015 By Ignoring Binding Decisions Of Hon’Ble Jurisdictional It At, Raipur Bench In Cases Of "Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank & Others Vs. Ito (Tds) Dt. 23.06.2016 Reported In (2016) 29 Itj 310" And

section 234E in the course of processing of TDS returns and intimation u/s 200A(1) for the F.Y. 2012/13 (A.Y. 2013/14

HE DISTRICT MARKETING OFFICER, CHHATTISGARH,RAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.291/Rpr/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 District Marketing Officer, The Ito (Tds), Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Vs Raipur (Cg). Marketing Federation Limited, Near Hotel Atithi, Near Railway Station, Jagdalpur (Cg). Tan: Jbpc0191B Appellant/Assessee Respondent / Revenue Applicant By Shri Nikhilesh Beghani Respondent By Shri G.N. Singh Date Of Hearing 03/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Raipur, Dated 01.03.2016For Assessment Year 2013-14Emanating From The Order Of Ito (Tds) U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’)Dated 18.03.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “Ground No.I That The Ex-Parte Appellate Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ("The Ld.Cit(A)") Is Highly Unjustified, Bad In Law, Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard & Not In Accordance With The Provisions Of Law. It Is

1) of the Act is procedural in nature and in view thereof, the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge ITA No.291/RPR/2016, for A.Y. 2013-14 Dist. Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh State Co-op. Marketing Federation fees under section 234E

JANTA INDUSTRIES,BASPAIPARA vs. MS.RANJINI SRIKUMAR, INCOMETAX OFFICER(TDS), INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.46 & 47/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Janta Industries Durga Talkies Road, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aaffj9101J ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer (Tds) Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

234E. Fee for defaults in furnishing statements (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 206C, he shall be liable

JANTA INDUSTRIES,BASPAIPARA vs. MS.RANJINI SRIKUMAR, INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.46 & 47/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Janta Industries Durga Talkies Road, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aaffj9101J ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer (Tds) Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

234E. Fee for defaults in furnishing statements (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 206C, he shall be liable

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 to 5 :- 5.1.1 Grounds of appeal are not related to mistake apparent from record i.e. out of order u/s. 154 of the Act, but all are related to late fee u/s. 234E of Rs. 31,000/- for delay in filing quarterly E-TDS return. From form number 35, it is clear that appeal has been filed against order

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 to 5 :- 5.1.1 Grounds of appeal are not related to mistake apparent from record i.e. out of order u/s. 154 of the Act, but all are related to late fee u/s. 234E of Rs. 31,000/- for delay in filing quarterly E-TDS return. From form number 35, it is clear that appeal has been filed against order

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 to 5 :- 5.1.1 Grounds of appeal are not related to mistake apparent from record i.e. out of order u/s. 154 of the Act, but all are related to late fee u/s. 234E of Rs. 31,000/- for delay in filing quarterly E-TDS return. From form number 35, it is clear that appeal has been filed against order

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 to 5 :- 5.1.1 Grounds of appeal are not related to mistake apparent from record i.e. out of order u/s. 154 of the Act, but all are related to late fee u/s. 234E of Rs. 31,000/- for delay in filing quarterly E-TDS return. From form number 35, it is clear that appeal has been filed against order

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 to 5 :- 5.1.1 Grounds of appeal are not related to mistake apparent from record i.e. out of order u/s. 154 of the Act, but all are related to late fee u/s. 234E of Rs. 31,000/- for delay in filing quarterly E-TDS return. From form number 35, it is clear that appeal has been filed against order

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 to 5 :- 5.1.1 Grounds of appeal are not related to mistake apparent from record i.e. out of order u/s. 154 of the Act, but all are related to late fee u/s. 234E of Rs. 31,000/- for delay in filing quarterly E-TDS return. From form number 35, it is clear that appeal has been filed against order

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 to 5 :- 5.1.1 Grounds of appeal are not related to mistake apparent from record i.e. out of order u/s. 154 of the Act, but all are related to late fee u/s. 234E of Rs. 31,000/- for delay in filing quarterly E-TDS return. From form number 35, it is clear that appeal has been filed against order

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 to 5 :- 5.1.1 Grounds of appeal are not related to mistake apparent from record i.e. out of order u/s. 154 of the Act, but all are related to late fee u/s. 234E of Rs. 31,000/- for delay in filing quarterly E-TDS return. From form number 35, it is clear that appeal has been filed against order

BLOCK RESOURCES CENTRE RAJIV GSANDHI SIKSHA MISSION,DHAMDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BHILAI

In the result, grounds raised in all these three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.33, 34 & 35/Rpr/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 V. Block Resources Coordinator Ito (Tds) Rajiv Gandhi Siksha Mission, Block Bhilai Patan, Bathena Road, Patan Dist. Durg – 491 111 Chhattisgarh

TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in treating the assessee as assessee in default in respect of sum of Rs.92,621/- without appreciating that the said deducteee / payee has discharged the income tax liability due thereof and has filed the return of income without considering the provisions of Section 4,191, 202 and 205 of the Income

BLOCK RESOURCES COORDINATOR RAJIV GANDHI SIKSHA MISSION,PATAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BHILAI

In the result, grounds raised in all these three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.33, 34 & 35/Rpr/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 V. Block Resources Coordinator Ito (Tds) Rajiv Gandhi Siksha Mission, Block Bhilai Patan, Bathena Road, Patan Dist. Durg – 491 111 Chhattisgarh

TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in treating the assessee as assessee in default in respect of sum of Rs.92,621/- without appreciating that the said deducteee / payee has discharged the income tax liability due thereof and has filed the return of income without considering the provisions of Section 4,191, 202 and 205 of the Income

BLOCK RESOURCES COORDINATOR RAJIV GANDHI SIKSHA MISSION,PATAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BHILAI

In the result, grounds raised in all these three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.33, 34 & 35/Rpr/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 V. Block Resources Coordinator Ito (Tds) Rajiv Gandhi Siksha Mission, Block Bhilai Patan, Bathena Road, Patan Dist. Durg – 491 111 Chhattisgarh

TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in treating the assessee as assessee in default in respect of sum of Rs.92,621/- without appreciating that the said deducteee / payee has discharged the income tax liability due thereof and has filed the return of income without considering the provisions of Section 4,191, 202 and 205 of the Income

PINKY SACHDEV,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Pinky Sachdev, Ito (Tds), ‘Nitya’, Plot No.25, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Krishna Sakha Society, Rohini Puram, Raipur-492 001 [Pan: Atsps 8079 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Nikhilesh Begani, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2023

1) of the Act thereby determining the liability for deduction of tax at source invoking the provisions of section 206AA of the Act thereby foisting higher liability of twenty percent as per the said provisions which is highly illegal, unjustified, unwarranted, not proper on facts and not in accordance with the provisions of law. He has failed to appreciate that