ITO, TDS,, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

TDS being unknown, interest was incapable of calculations, it could be said that interest under section 201(1A) was not leviable - Held, yes - 13. We also find substantial merit in the second submission of the learned counsel for the assessee, namely, that interest under section 201(1A) was not leviable because the date of payment of tax deducted at source

ITO, TDS, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHHINAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

TDS being unknown, interest was incapable of calculations, it could be said that interest under section 201(1A) was not leviable - Held, yes - 13. We also find substantial merit in the second submission of the learned counsel for the assessee, namely, that interest under section 201(1A) was not leviable because the date of payment of tax deducted at source

RISHIRAJ HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS), JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.104, 206 & 207/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Rishiraj Homes Private Limited Vs. Ito(Tds), Jamshedpur Contractors Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, C/O: Ca Jagdish Khandelwal, 402&403, A.J.Tower, Q. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr 7328 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Jagdish Khandelwal, Ca(Ar) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur, All Dated 05.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016, Respectively. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In All The Thee Appeals Of The Assessee Is That The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ao Levying Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act For Delay In Filing Quarterly Statement. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Tds Return In Form No.24Q Financial Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 Relating To Assessment Year 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016, Respectively. Thereafter A Demand Was Raised In All The Three Appeals Under 2

13 has held as under :- “8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing

INDICO MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.324/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) (Financial Year 2012-2013) Indico Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito(Tds), Jamshedpur M-25(P) & 26(P) Ivth Phase, Adityapur Industrial Area, Chamaria, Jamshedpur C/O: Ca Jagdish Khandelwal, 402&403, A.J.Tower, Q. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabci 4002 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Jagdish Khandelwal, Ca(Ar) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur, Dated 30.07.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ao Levying Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act For Delay In Filing Quarterly Statement. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Tds Return In Form No.24Q Financial Year 2012-2013 Relating To Assessment Year 2013-2014. Thereafter A Demand Was Raised In The Appeal Under Consideration On Account Of Late Filing Fee U/S.234E Of The Act. Thereafter

13 has held as under :- “8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing

PRAMOD KUMAR MANPURIA ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.50 To 54/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-3-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q) M/S Pramod Kumar Manpuria Vs. Dcit, Cpc(Tds), C/O Modern Funishers Ghaziabad, Up Sujata Chow, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 C/O L.K.Saraf & Co. Chartered 2Nd Accountants, Floor, Chauhan Mansion, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acnpm 3796 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Saket Modi, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 31.10.2017 For The A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q), A.Y. 2013- 2014(Q-3-26Q), A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q), A.Y. 2014-2015(Q- 2-26Q) & A.Y. 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q), Respectively. 2. The Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Appeals Is That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal In Respect Of Levy Of Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act.

13 has held as under :- “8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the 4 ITA No.50-54/Ran/2018 ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Section 200A of the Act is a machinery

PRAMOD KUMAR MANPURIA,RANCHI vs. DCIT CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.50 To 54/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-3-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q) M/S Pramod Kumar Manpuria Vs. Dcit, Cpc(Tds), C/O Modern Funishers Ghaziabad, Up Sujata Chow, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 C/O L.K.Saraf & Co. Chartered 2Nd Accountants, Floor, Chauhan Mansion, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acnpm 3796 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Saket Modi, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 31.10.2017 For The A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q), A.Y. 2013- 2014(Q-3-26Q), A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q), A.Y. 2014-2015(Q- 2-26Q) & A.Y. 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q), Respectively. 2. The Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Appeals Is That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal In Respect Of Levy Of Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act.

13 has held as under :- “8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the 4 ITA No.50-54/Ran/2018 ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Section 200A of the Act is a machinery

PRAMOD KUMAR MANPURIA ,RANCHI vs. DCIT TDS CPC , GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.50 To 54/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-3-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q) M/S Pramod Kumar Manpuria Vs. Dcit, Cpc(Tds), C/O Modern Funishers Ghaziabad, Up Sujata Chow, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 C/O L.K.Saraf & Co. Chartered 2Nd Accountants, Floor, Chauhan Mansion, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acnpm 3796 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Saket Modi, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 31.10.2017 For The A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q), A.Y. 2013- 2014(Q-3-26Q), A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q), A.Y. 2014-2015(Q- 2-26Q) & A.Y. 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q), Respectively. 2. The Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Appeals Is That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal In Respect Of Levy Of Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act.

13 has held as under :- “8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the 4 ITA No.50-54/Ran/2018 ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Section 200A of the Act is a machinery

PRAMOD KUMAR MANPURIA,RANCHI vs. DCIT CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.50 To 54/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-3-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q) M/S Pramod Kumar Manpuria Vs. Dcit, Cpc(Tds), C/O Modern Funishers Ghaziabad, Up Sujata Chow, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 C/O L.K.Saraf & Co. Chartered 2Nd Accountants, Floor, Chauhan Mansion, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acnpm 3796 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Saket Modi, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 31.10.2017 For The A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q), A.Y. 2013- 2014(Q-3-26Q), A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q), A.Y. 2014-2015(Q- 2-26Q) & A.Y. 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q), Respectively. 2. The Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Appeals Is That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal In Respect Of Levy Of Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act.

13 has held as under :- “8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the 4 ITA No.50-54/Ran/2018 ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Section 200A of the Act is a machinery

PRAMOD KUMAR MANPURIA ,RANCHI vs. DCIT TDS CPC , GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.50 To 54/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-3-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q) M/S Pramod Kumar Manpuria Vs. Dcit, Cpc(Tds), C/O Modern Funishers Ghaziabad, Up Sujata Chow, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 C/O L.K.Saraf & Co. Chartered 2Nd Accountants, Floor, Chauhan Mansion, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acnpm 3796 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Saket Modi, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 31.10.2017 For The A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q), A.Y. 2013- 2014(Q-3-26Q), A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q), A.Y. 2014-2015(Q- 2-26Q) & A.Y. 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q), Respectively. 2. The Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Appeals Is That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal In Respect Of Levy Of Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act.

13 has held as under :- “8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the 4 ITA No.50-54/Ran/2018 ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Section 200A of the Act is a machinery

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LIMITED ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

13,59,936/- (AY 2000-01 to AY 2005-06) instead of Rs. 1886,90,89,176/- (AY 1996-97 to 2005-06) and restricting the same for C.O. No. 07/Ran/2018 AY: 2008-09 M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited preceding 8 years only by relying on the amendment made in this regard by Finance (No. 2), Bill 1996. 5. Aggrieved

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

13,59,936/- (AY 2000-01 to AY 2005-06) instead of Rs. 1886,90,89,176/- (AY 1996-97 to 2005-06) and restricting the same for C.O. No. 07/Ran/2018 AY: 2008-09 M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited preceding 8 years only by relying on the amendment made in this regard by Finance (No. 2), Bill 1996. 5. Aggrieved

M/S P.K.UPADHYAY vs. ITO WARD-3(5), PALAMAU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

13,698/- According to the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to deduct TDS under section 194C of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, he disallowed both the items. 11. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Revenue Authorities are not justified in making the above disallowance because on purchase of material

HARDEEP SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS)J, JAMSHEDPUR

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

13 has held as under :- “8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing

HARDEEP SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS)J, JAMSHEDPUR

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

13 has held as under :- “8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

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

13 has held as under :- “8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

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

13 has held as under :- “8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing

NIRMAL MODI,RANCHI vs. ACIT CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.82 To 84/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) Nirmal Modi, Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Aayakar Prop: Bina Bastralaya Saree Bhawan, Sector-3, Kendra, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, Randhir Pd. Street, Upper (U.P.)-201010 Bazar, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Adxpm 9244 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Ajay Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 09.01.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 To 2015-2016. 2. The Common Ground Raised By The Assessee In All The Three Appeals Is As Under :- “1. For That The Impugned Assessment Order Is Contrary To Law & Against The Facts On Record. 2. For That The Levy Of Penalty/Fee U/S.234E Of The I.Tax Act 1961 Prior To 01.06.2015 Is Unsustainable In Law As The Enabling Provision To Levy The Fee Has Been Inserted W.E.F.01.06.2015. 3. For That Under The Similar Facts & Circumstances The Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar In The Case Of “Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit(Tds), Ghaziabad” Has Held That The Impugned Levy Of Fees U/S.234E Is Unsustainable In Law. 4. For That Any Other Ground Or Grounds Relief Or Reliefs Shall Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.

13 has held as under :- “8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing

NIRMAL MODI ,RANCHI vs. ACIT CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.82 To 84/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) Nirmal Modi, Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Aayakar Prop: Bina Bastralaya Saree Bhawan, Sector-3, Kendra, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, Randhir Pd. Street, Upper (U.P.)-201010 Bazar, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Adxpm 9244 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Ajay Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 09.01.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 To 2015-2016. 2. The Common Ground Raised By The Assessee In All The Three Appeals Is As Under :- “1. For That The Impugned Assessment Order Is Contrary To Law & Against The Facts On Record. 2. For That The Levy Of Penalty/Fee U/S.234E Of The I.Tax Act 1961 Prior To 01.06.2015 Is Unsustainable In Law As The Enabling Provision To Levy The Fee Has Been Inserted W.E.F.01.06.2015. 3. For That Under The Similar Facts & Circumstances The Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar In The Case Of “Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit(Tds), Ghaziabad” Has Held That The Impugned Levy Of Fees U/S.234E Is Unsustainable In Law. 4. For That Any Other Ground Or Grounds Relief Or Reliefs Shall Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.

13 has held as under :- “8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing

NIRMAL MODI,RANCHI vs. ACIT CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.82 To 84/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) Nirmal Modi, Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Aayakar Prop: Bina Bastralaya Saree Bhawan, Sector-3, Kendra, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, Randhir Pd. Street, Upper (U.P.)-201010 Bazar, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Adxpm 9244 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Ajay Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 09.01.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 To 2015-2016. 2. The Common Ground Raised By The Assessee In All The Three Appeals Is As Under :- “1. For That The Impugned Assessment Order Is Contrary To Law & Against The Facts On Record. 2. For That The Levy Of Penalty/Fee U/S.234E Of The I.Tax Act 1961 Prior To 01.06.2015 Is Unsustainable In Law As The Enabling Provision To Levy The Fee Has Been Inserted W.E.F.01.06.2015. 3. For That Under The Similar Facts & Circumstances The Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar In The Case Of “Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit(Tds), Ghaziabad” Has Held That The Impugned Levy Of Fees U/S.234E Is Unsustainable In Law. 4. For That Any Other Ground Or Grounds Relief Or Reliefs Shall Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.

13 has held as under :- “8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing