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

2) (k) is done away in view of the insertion of Section 271H providing for penal provision for such failure to submit return. When the Parliament has simultaneously brought about Section 5 Padma Parakh Vs. ITO (TDS) ITA Nos. 560, 561 & 562/RPR/2025 234E

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

2) (k) is done away in view of the insertion of Section 271H providing for penal provision for such failure to submit return. When the Parliament has simultaneously brought about Section 5 Padma Parakh Vs. ITO (TDS) ITA Nos. 560, 561 & 562/RPR/2025 234E

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

TDS) dt. 31.01.2019" relied on in written submission filed before him. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of fee under section 234E

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

TDS) dt. 31.01.2019" relied on in written submission filed before him. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of fee under section 234E

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

Section 201 of the Act defines the ‘assessee in default’ who has not deducted tax at source. Therefore, in this case since the tax was not deducted at source, we uphold the order of ITO(TDS) passed u/s 201(1) for F.Y. 2012-13. Accordingly, grounds of appeal No.1, 2 and 3 of assessee are dismissed. 7. The ITO (TDS

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

TDS)/CPC, Bengaluru ITA Nos. 46 & 47/RPR/2026 compass of material facts, we are proceeding to dispose of this appeal on merits. 5. We may produce, for ready reference, section 234E of the Act, which was inserted by the Finance Act 2012 and was brought into effect from 1st July 2012. This statutory provision is as follows: 234E. Fee for defaults

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

TDS)/CPC, Bengaluru ITA Nos. 46 & 47/RPR/2026 compass of material facts, we are proceeding to dispose of this appeal on merits. 5. We may produce, for ready reference, section 234E of the Act, which was inserted by the Finance Act 2012 and was brought into effect from 1st July 2012. This statutory provision is as follows: 234E. Fee for defaults

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

234E for late filing of quarterly TDS statement 240 for A.Y. 2013-14 (F.Y. 2012-13 01), which was filed and for which order was passed on 06.09.2014. 5.1.5 However, it is noted that the appellant has enclosed an order u/s.154 dated 02.02.2022 (and not order u/s 200A) along with the Form 35 and given this as the date

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

234E for late filing of quarterly TDS statement 240 for A.Y. 2013-14 (F.Y. 2012-13 01), which was filed and for which order was passed on 06.09.2014. 5.1.5 However, it is noted that the appellant has enclosed an order u/s.154 dated 02.02.2022 (and not order u/s 200A) along with the Form 35 and given this as the date

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

234E for late filing of quarterly TDS statement 240 for A.Y. 2013-14 (F.Y. 2012-13 01), which was filed and for which order was passed on 06.09.2014. 5.1.5 However, it is noted that the appellant has enclosed an order u/s.154 dated 02.02.2022 (and not order u/s 200A) along with the Form 35 and given this as the date

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

234E for late filing of quarterly TDS statement 240 for A.Y. 2013-14 (F.Y. 2012-13 01), which was filed and for which order was passed on 06.09.2014. 5.1.5 However, it is noted that the appellant has enclosed an order u/s.154 dated 02.02.2022 (and not order u/s 200A) along with the Form 35 and given this as the date

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

234E for late filing of quarterly TDS statement 240 for A.Y. 2013-14 (F.Y. 2012-13 01), which was filed and for which order was passed on 06.09.2014. 5.1.5 However, it is noted that the appellant has enclosed an order u/s.154 dated 02.02.2022 (and not order u/s 200A) along with the Form 35 and given this as the date

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

234E for late filing of quarterly TDS statement 240 for A.Y. 2013-14 (F.Y. 2012-13 01), which was filed and for which order was passed on 06.09.2014. 5.1.5 However, it is noted that the appellant has enclosed an order u/s.154 dated 02.02.2022 (and not order u/s 200A) along with the Form 35 and given this as the date

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

234E for late filing of quarterly TDS statement 240 for A.Y. 2013-14 (F.Y. 2012-13 01), which was filed and for which order was passed on 06.09.2014. 5.1.5 However, it is noted that the appellant has enclosed an order u/s.154 dated 02.02.2022 (and not order u/s 200A) along with the Form 35 and given this as the date

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

234E for late filing of quarterly TDS statement 240 for A.Y. 2013-14 (F.Y. 2012-13 01), which was filed and for which order was passed on 06.09.2014. 5.1.5 However, it is noted that the appellant has enclosed an order u/s.154 dated 02.02.2022 (and not order u/s 200A) along with the Form 35 and given this as the date

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of the Learned Income Tax Officer (TDS) (the Ld AO) in treating the appellant as "an assessee in default" u/s 201(1) of the Act thereby determining the liability for deduction

BLOCK RESOURCES COORDINATOR, RAJIV GANDHI SIKSHA MISSION, BLOCK KANSABEL,JASHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BILASPUR, BILAPSUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 350/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), for the Assessment Year 2011-12, which in turn arises from the order of Income Tax Officer (TDS), Bilaspur, (in short “Ld. AR”), u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act, dated 17.03.2018. 2 ITA 350/RPR/2025 Block Resources Coordinator vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Bilaspur 2. The grounds

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

sections. She was also required to file returns u/s. 200 of the Act. She had made requisite compliances, the returns were filed, however, the return for second quarter of F.Y. 2012-13 could not be filed within due date provided under the Act. 2. The Appellant received letter on 16/09/2022 from the Income Tax Officer (TDS) Ward Bhilai requiring

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

sections. She was also required to file returns u/s. 200 of the Act. She had made requisite compliances, the returns were filed, however, the return for second quarter of F.Y. 2012-13 could not be filed within due date provided under the Act. 2. The Appellant received letter on 16/09/2022 from the Income Tax Officer (TDS) Ward Bhilai requiring