2024 (3) TMI 685

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ions under section 200A of the Act, when they have processed the application for TDS under section 200A, no late fee can be imposed under section 234E. Thus we are of the considered view that the Ld.CIT(A) has fallen in error in sustaining the levy of penalty - Decided in favour of assessee.
HON'BLE JUDGES SHAMIM YAHYA, MEMBER (A) AND ANUBHAV SHARMA, MEMBER (J) For the Appellant : Tanpreet Koli, Adv. For the Respondents : Kanv Bali, Sr. DR ORDER PER BENCH : 1. These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee, challenging the respective orders of Ld.CIT(Appeals), wherein the assessee had challenged the impugned order of CPC(TDS) for the respective quarters for assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2013-14 respectively. A chart .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... levying late fee under section 234E of the Act. 5. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence." 6. Ld. AR has submitted that under section 200A of the Act, which deals with the manner in which the statement of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) shall be processed, the Authorities have no power to impose the late fee under section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013 to 2015-16, since section 200A(l)(c) of the Act was introduced only with effect from 1-6-2015. Accordingly, any fee under Sec 234E could have been levied only prospectively, for periods beyond 01.06.2015, which is not the case of the case. Accordingly, the levy of fe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the matter, this Court feels that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside." 6.1. Further reliance is placed on Amaravati vs. ITO, High Court of Kerala, [2022] 142 taxmann.com 81 (Kerala); Atlas Brands (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, High Court of Karnataka, [2022] 137 taxmann.com 191 (Karnataka); Franchise India Brands Ltd. vs. CPC, ITAT Delhi, [2020] 122 taxmann.com 196 (Delhi - Trib.) Govt. Girls Sr. Secondary School vs. ACIT, ITAT Delhi, [2020] 121 taxmann.com 170 (Delhi - Trib.) 7. In the light of aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the Ld.CIT(A) has fallen in error in sustaining the levy of penalty in ITA No.878/Del/2023. Further, in the remaining appeals the Ld.CIT(A) has fallen in error in not giving an opportunity of hear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X