2018 (6) TMI 284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6/Agr/2017 Shri A.D. Jain, Judicial Member And Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Appellant by : Shri Ashok Vijyayabargiya, CA And Shri Rajendra Khatwani, CA, Shri Rohil Singhal, CA, Shri Ajit Madvariya, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR, Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR ORDER Per Bench This bunch of appeals for AY 2013-14 are directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Gwalior against upholding levy of fee u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter short the 'Act'). 2. There was a delay of 24 days in filing appeals in respect of 37 branches out of 88 branches located at distant places. 3. The counsel for the assessee has submitted that after receipt of the intimation/statement of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng provisions u/s 200A of the Act for raising demand in respect of levy of penalty u/s 234E of the Act and thus in the absence of enabling provision for making such adjustment for levying late fee u/s 234E, no such late fee could be imposed by the AO. In support, the counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the decision in the cases of 'Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCiT (TDS) (2015) 121 DTR 81 (ASR) (Trib) and G Indhirani Vs. DCIT (2015) 43 CCH 511 (Chen-Trib) wherein it was held that in the absence of enabling provisions u/s 200A of the Act, such levy of late fee is not valid. The ld. CIT(A) has rejected this contention of the appellants by relying on the decision in the case of 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India', 83 Taxmann.com 13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing the mechanism for processing a TDS statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustment. The Ld. CIT(A) has further held that this decision was delivered after considering numerous ITAT and High Court decisions and therefore this decision in 'Rajesh Kaurani' (Supra), holds the fields. 9. It is seen that prior 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act. The provision of Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of tax at source and for making adjustments. The ld. CIT(A) has held that this decision was delivered after considering numerous ITAT/High Court decisions and so, this decision in 'Rajesh Kaurani' (supra) holds the field. 4. We do not find the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) to be correct in law. As against 'Rajesh Kaurani' (supra), 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs.UOI', 73 Taxmann.com 252 (Ker), as also admitted by the ld. CIT(A) himself, decides the issue in favour of the assessee. The only objection of the ld. CIT(A) is that this decision and others to the same effect have been taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court while passing 'Rajesh Kaurani' (supra). However, while observing so, the ld. CIT(A) has failed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. In view of the above, respectfully following 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others' (supra), 'Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (TDS)', order dated 09.06.2015 passed in ITA No.90/ASR/2015, for A.Y.2013-14, by the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal, and 'Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS) Ghaziabad', order dated 15.09.2016, in ITA No.378/ASR/2015, for A.Y. 2012-13, the grievance of the assessee is accepted as justified. The order under appeal is reversed. The levy of the fee is cancelled." 11. In the above view, respectfully following 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Ors' (Supra), 'Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Supra), 'Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', (Supra), and our own finding in the case of 'Sudershan Goyal' (Supra), we accept the....
TaxTMI
TaxTMI