9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeals and delete the fee u/s 234E of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.3324/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 - - - Dated:- 31-3-2017 - Shri Mahavir Singh, JM And Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri M C Omi Ningshan ORDER Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A)-59, Mumbai dated 21.4.2015 for the assessment year 2014-15(26Q-2) 2. At the outset, we would like to mention here that neither the assessee or his authorized representative appeared before this Tribunal when the appeal was called for hearing nor there is any application seeking adjournment of the hearing i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be levied on the deductor. The court further held that the provisions of section 234E are not onerous on the ground that the section does not empower the AO to condone the delay in late filing of the TDS return/statements, or that no appeal is provided for from an arbitrary order passed under section 234E. The Honble court observed that the right of appeal is not a matter of right but a creature of statute and if the legislature deems it fit not to provide a remedy of appeal, so be it and even in such scenario it is not as if the aggrieved party is remediless. Such person can always approach this court in extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India as the case may be. The Honble Court has held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.7.2012, section 234E provided for levying of fee of ₹ 200/- per day for each day of default in filing the TDS. We find merit in the argument of the ld.AR that the provisions of section 200A(1)(c) of the Act there was no authority or competence or jurisdiction on the part of the concerned officer or department to compute or determine the fee under section 234E in respect of assessment which falls prior to 1.6.2015 as the said provisions was also brought on the statute book w.e.f. 1.6.2015 and consequently no demand u/s 234E should have been determined and raised upon the assessee. In the case of Fatheraj Singhvi V/s Union of India 2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka), the Hon ble Karnataka High Court has decided an identic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
