9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not decided but the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Fatheraj Singhvi & ors. Vs. Union of India [2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and held that the late fee U/s 234E of the Act has raised vide impugned demand notice U/s 200A of the Act. We find force in the contention of the ld. AR of the assessee. If there is conflicting views taken by the two Hon'ble Courts, then the view, which favours the assessee should be adopted. In this regard, the ld AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014 (9) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT). In view of the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en submissions supported by case laws of various ITAT Benches. Thus, confirming of the action of ld. A.O. of charging of such fee while sending intimation U/s 200A is legally and factually incorrect and deserves to be deleted. In all the other appeals also, the assessees have taken similar identical grounds mentioned above. 4. Briefly stated facts in this case are that the Assessing Officer levied late fee U/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) for filing the TDS return late vide order dated 25th December, 2013. Similar identical facts have also been mentioned by the A.O. in all the other appeals. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 723/JP/2016 for the A.Y. 2013-14 / Q-3 4 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- 3.5. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also gone through the case laws relied upon by the ld. Counsel. We find merit into the contention of ld. Counsel that he jurisdictional High Court has decided the validity of section 234E, but has not decide the issue of power of AO for levy of tax under section 234E in the judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan and Others (supra) as relied by ld. CIT (A). We have considered the recent decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shri Fatheraj Singhvi Ors ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he demand notices U/s 200A is held to be without authority of law so far as it relates to computation and demand of fee U/s 234E, the question of further scrutiny for testing the constitutional validity of Section 234E would be rendered as an academic exercise. We find that the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan Vs. Union of India (supra) has also considered the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia Vs. Union of India (2015) 229 Taxman 596 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided the nature of demand. The Hon'ble High Court has held that Section 234E of the Act is not punitive in nature but a fee which is a fixed charge for the extra service which the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
