2018 (10) TMI 285

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he A.Y 2014-15 are reproduced hereunder: "1. The order of the Hon'ble CIT (A) is erroneous in law as well as facts of the case. 2. The Hon'ble CIT (A) ought to have observed that the order dated 4.5.2017 passed by the AO rejecting to rectify and delete the fee u/s 234C of the I.T. Act was without appreciating the provisions in proper prospective and therefore, it was erroneous in law and the fee ought to have been deleted. 3. The Hon'ble CIT (A) ought to have held that the AO failed to observe that late fee u/s 234E of the I.T. Act was brought into the fold of section 200A of the I.T. Act w.e.f. 1.06.2015 and therefore, the relevant provision i.e. 234E of the IT Act cannot be applied for the financial year 2013-14. 4. In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....183 wherein the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Qrs. 289 CTR 602 (Kar.) wherein it was held that prior to 1.6.2015, no adjustment on account of fee u/s 234E could be made by the AO while processing the returns u/s 200A of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal has observed that as per the established principles of interpretation of Statute, where two view were possible on an issue, the view favourable to the assessee was to be taken and placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd, reported in (1973) 88 ITR 192 to hold it in favour of the assessee. 3. The learned DR was also heard. ....