2018 (2) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - - - Dated:- 20-12-2017 - SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Sh. Pratap Gupta, CA For The Revenue : Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR ORDER PER K. NARSIMHA CHARY, J.M. Challenging the order dated 24/07/2060 in Appeal No. 347/14-15, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-41 New Delhi (for short hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT (A) ), assessee preferred this appeal on the following grounds 1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) without appreciating the facts of the case is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming levy of late filing fee of ₹ 39, 400/-under section 234E of the IT Act. 2. The assessee has eve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the Ld. First Appellate Authority has relied upon the decision in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia vs UOI (2015) 54 taxman.com 200 (Bom.), Laxminirman Bangalore Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (2015) 60 taxman.com 144 (Karnataka) and M/s Dundlod Shishan Sansthan vs UOI (2015) 63 taxman.com 243 (Raj.), as such, such an order cannot be interfered with. However, the factual matrix has not been in dispute. 4. A reading of section 200A of the Act shows that it deals with processing of statement of tax deducted at source, whereas, section 234E of the Act deals with fee for default in furnishing statements. On a careful reading of the material papers on record we found that the facts involved in this matter are similar to the facts involved in the case of G .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... IT vs Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466(SC) which is to the effect of general principle concerning application of retrospectively of the amendment, wherein, it was held that a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. It is also noted that the Bench followed the decision in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs UOI(2016) 73 taxman.com 252 (Kerala)(Para-32) and Kash Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO (ITA NO.4199(Mum.) of 2015) dated 27/07/2016(para-36). Even if two views are possible/available, as per the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vegetable Products (88 ITR 192)(SC), the view, which favors the assessee has to be followed. The issue before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X