Appeal successful: Fees, penalties overturned under sections 234E, 220(2), 201(IA). Prompt TDS filing crucial.

The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, ruling in favor of the arguments presented. The levy of fees, penalties, and interest under relevant sections, including u/s 234E, u/s 220(2), and u/s 201(IA), was overturned. The tribunal emphasized that the fee u/s 234E cannot be imposed if the TDS statement is filed promptly after tax payment, in accordance with section 200(3).

---

---

Issues:
1. Levy of fee/penalty u/s 234E by the Assessing Officer.
2. Charging of interest u/s 201 and section 220.
3. Confirmation of assessee as "assessee in default" u/s 201.
4. Imposition of penalty u/s 234E for late filing of TDS Statement.
5. Charging of interest u/s 220(2).
6. Levy of fee u/s 234E for a period prior to 01.06.2015.
7. Adequate opportunity of hearing and principle of natural justice.
8. Applicability of section 194IA in the case.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) regarding the levy of fee/penalty u/s 234E for A.Y. 2014-15. The assessee challenged the order on various grounds, including the confirmation of being an "assessee in default" and the charging of interest u/s 201 and section 220.

2. The facts revealed that the assessee, along with other co-owners, purchased a property and received demands under various sections, including u/s 201, u/s 234E, and u/s 220(2). The department contended that the assessee failed to comply with the provisions of section 194IA by not deducting TDS at the time of purchase.

3. The Ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal, stating that the assessee was liable to deduct TDS u/s 194IA, and the charging of interest u/s 201 and 220(2) was justified. The issue of levy of fee u/s 234E was also addressed, indicating that it was levied after 1.4.2015.

4. During the proceedings, the assessee's counsel argued that the tax was paid promptly, and the statement was filed without delay, thus challenging the levy of fee u/s 234E. The counsel highlighted the provisions of section 200(3) and rule 31A(4A), emphasizing that the fee is applicable only when the statement is not filed as prescribed after tax payment.

5. The Ld. DR maintained that the assessee's failure to deduct TDS constituted a clear default, justifying the levy of fee u/s 234E. However, the tribunal observed that the fee under section 234E is applicable only when the statement is not filed as prescribed under section 200(3), which was not the case here.

6. The tribunal referred to a case law to support its decision, emphasizing that the fee u/s 234E cannot be levied in violation of section 200(3) when the statement is filed promptly after tax payment. Consequently, the demand on account of section 234E was canceled, and interest u/s 220(2) and u/s 201(IA) were also deleted.

7. In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, ruling in favor of the arguments presented regarding the levy of fees, penalties, and interest under the relevant sections.

---