TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2016. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee had delayed filing of its statements of tax deduction at source for the third quarter for A.Y. 2013-14. Resultantly, the ACIT, Central Processing Cell- TDS levied late filing fees of Rs. 4,790/- under Sec.234E of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the imposition of late filing fees under Sec.234E before the CIT(A). It was observed by the CIT(A) that the appeal which was manually filed by the assessee before him on 10.10.2016, therein involved a delay of 12 days. It was the claim of the assessee before him that the aforesaid delay in filing of the appeal had occasioned, for the reason, that she was away to Indore to see her ailing mother during the period 25.09.2016 to 09.10.2016. Apart t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st by 20.07.2013. Accordingly, the CIT(A) was of the view that the delay involved in the filing of the manual appeal worked out to a period of 3 years and 2 months (and not 12 days as had wrongly been computed by the assessee). As the assessee had failed to come forth with a 'sufficient cause' to explain the aforesaid substantial delay of 3 years and 2 months in filing of the appeal, the CIT(A) declined to condone the same. As regards the merits of the case, the CIT(A) was not inclined to accept the claim of the assessee that the late filing fee under Sec.234E was not liable to be imposed for the period prior to 01.06.2015. i.e the date on which Sec. 234E enabling the levy of fees was made available in Sec.200A. On the basis of his aforesai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y him as regards the period of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. As noticed by the CIT(A), it is a matter of fact, that only the intimation dated 29.08.2016 is visible on the TRACES website. In fact, a perusal of the intimation for the TDS statement filed by the assessee along with the appeal before us, therein clearly reveals that the "Order pass date" is mentioned as 29.08.2016. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view that there is substance in the claim of the assessee that the intimation under Sec.200A was received by her on 29.08.2016. As a matter of fact, no material has been placed on record to dislodge the aforesaid claim off the assessee. Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid facts, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00/- was levied under Sec. 234E on the assessee. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatehraj Singhavi Vs. Union of India (2016) 289 CTR 602 (Kar) had concluded that the notice under Sec.200A computing the fee under Sec. 234E, to the extent the same was levied in respect of the period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015 was liable to be 'set aside'. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had thereafter been relied upon by the ITAT, Chandigarh in the case of Sonalac Paint & Coating Ltd. Vs.DCIT, (2018) 176 DTR 83 (Chd), wherein it was observed as under: "In the aforesaid case it was observed by the Tribunal that levy of fees under Sec.234E while processing the TDS returns under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax deducted at source for the four quarters prior to 01.06.2015 in respect of the captioned years viz. A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 and A.Y.2015-16. We thus not being persuaded to subscribe to the view taken by the CIT(A) who had upheld the levy of fees by the A.O, thus set aside his order and vacate the demand raised by the A.O under Sec.234E in the hands of the assessee for all the four quarters for the year under consideration." As in the present case before us, the fees under Sec.234E has been levied in respect of the delay on the part of the assessee for filing her TDS return in "Form 26Q" for the third quarter of financial year 2012-13 i.e the period prior to 01.06.2015 (the cut of date from which the amendment enabling levy of fees unde....