Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 220(2) is Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI (73 Taxmann.com 252), cited in 1,778 of the 124 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 220(2)

Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI
73 Taxmann.com 252 · 2016 · High Court
1,778
citing judgments

The amendment to Section 200A, enabling the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E, applies prospectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, no fee under Section 234E can be levied via an intimation issued under Section 200A for periods prior to this date.

Kourani v. Union OF India
83 Taxmann.com 137 · 2017 · High Court
1,708
citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E for late filing of TDS/TCS statements cannot be levied retrospectively by processing an intimation under Section 200A for defaults occurring before the amendment allowing such processing.

Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. v. UOI
289 CTR 602 · 2016 · High Court
844
citing judgments

A fee under Section 234E cannot be levied or adjusted in an intimation under Section 200A for TDS statements pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect only from that date.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India
54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court
702
citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v. UOI
440 ITR 26 · 2022 · High Court
614
citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act cannot be levied for defaults in filing TDS statements committed prior to June 1, 2015, as the provision for its levy became effective only from that date.

Gajanan Constructions v. DCIT
74 Taxmann.com 6 · 2016 · ITAT
465
citing judgments
Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan v. Union of India
63 Taxmann.com 243 · 2015 · High Court
397
citing judgments
Sree Narayana Guru Smaraka Sangam Upper Primary School v. Union of India and Others
392 ITR 457 · 2017 · High Court
217
citing judgments
Jiji Varghese v. ITO(TDS) & Ors.
443 ITR 267 · 2022 · High Court
212
citing judgments

No fee under Section 234E can be imposed for periods falling under assessment years prior to June 1, 2015.

137 (Guj.) IV. Qatalys Software Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. UOI
115 Taxmann.com 345 · 2020 · High Court
178
citing judgments

Intimations issued under Section 200A cannot levy fee under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS statements that relate to periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A allowing such levy is prospective from June 1, 2015.

Judgments on Section 220(2)

VIJAY STONE PRODUCT,SONEBHADRA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2011-12 Vijay Stone Product, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Bari Dala, Sonebhadra-231001 Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad Pan: Aagfv4724J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 3, Lucknow Dated 29.10.2018 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed A Penalty Of Rs. 1 Lac Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 221 Of The Act Against The Total Levy Of Rs. 27,26,200/- Made By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Order Passed U/S 221(1) Of The It Act Imposing Huge Penalty & His Action As Partly Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) By Maintaining Penalty Of Rs. 1,00,000/- Is Unjustified & Incorrect In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Tax Liability On The Basis Of Assessment Order As Created Is Not Correct At All Therefore The Question Of Maintaining Penalty Of Rs. 1,00,000/- Is Unwarranted In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer & His Action As Partly Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Is Totally Incorrect & Illegal & Hence The Question Of Maintaining Penalty Does Not Arise & Therefore So Maintained Penalty Is Liable To Be Deleted In All Fairness & In Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 153DSection 153D(1)(B)Section 220(2)Section 221Section 221(1)Section 276C(2)

Showing 120 of 124 · Page 1 of 7