2019 (2) TMI 1751

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d together and disposed of by way of this consolidated order. ITA No.5685/MUM/2018 2. The only common issue raised in all these appeals by the assessee is against the order of ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the late fee as imposed by the AO (TDS-CPC) u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect of TDS returns filed after due date by the assessee but prior to 1.6.2015. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that for F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to the A.Y. 2014-15, the assessee has filed its TDS returns in respect of payments/credits on which assessee has deducted tax at source in the prescribed format, however, the said returns were filed after due date of filing of the returns. The said TDS returns were processed by the Ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(1) to section 200A of the Act . The ld.AR further submitted that only those returns were filed after the said date could be subjected to imposition of late fee u/s 234E of the Act and not to the cases filed prior to the said amendment. Therefore, the ld counsel of the assessee submitted that intimations u/s 200A issued by the AO are beyond the scope and ambit of section 200A of the Act so far as relate to imposition of late fee u/s 234E of the Act and accordingly and late fee charged u/s 234E of the Act deserves to be deleted. In support of his arguments, ld.AR submitted that amendment vide Finance Act, 2015 makes its clear that in absence of enabling the provisions of Sec. 200A of the Act ,levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act for TDS statement....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me. It is correct that the clauses (c) to (e) to sub-section (1) of section 200A brought on the statute took w.e.f. 01/06/2015 by the Finance Act, 2015. Accordingly, we are of the view that the late fee as imposed by the AO (TDS-CPC) is wrong and consequent order upholding the said imposition by the ld.CIT(A) is also not correct. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the series of decision referred to by the assessee. In the case of Sudarshan Goyal (supra) wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has considered the decision passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani vs. UOI and the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. (supra). The Coordinate Bench ....