TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 926
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. 2. The assessee, has more or less raised common grounds of appeal in both appeals. Therefore, for the sake of brevity grounds of appeal raised in ITA.No.6657/Mum/2018 are reproduced as under:- 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of Assessing Officer (TDSCPC) in levying the late fees u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the facts in total. He has ignored the provisions of the section 234E, which specifies that the TDS return has to be accepted with the payment of the fees. The Learned assessing Officer imposed the under mentioned late fees u/s 234E for A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The Ld. CIT has also erred in levying late payment interest in Q2 and thereby making the addition as under: He has ignored our sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....when the default of filing the TDS statement late occurs. Rather, section 234E(3) casts an obligations on the deductor to pay voluntarily the late fee. It does not speak of preventing a levy thereof. In any event, the mere fact that an automated system accepts a TDS returns will not defeat the legislative intent. Therefore, he opined that there is no merit in arguments of the assessee and accordingly, dismissed appeal filed by the assesee. 4. The Ld. AR for the assesee, at the time of hearing submitted that this issue is squarely covered, in favour of the assesee by the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs Union Of India (supra) and also, the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Marudhar Foods Pv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to any period following after 01/06/2015. Further, the ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of Marudhar Foods Pvt.Ltd. vs DCIT in ITA No. 7581/Mum/2016 had held that prior to the amendment to section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 01/06/2015. The Ld. AO had no authority in law to levy fee u/s 234E, while processing the statements of TDS u/s 200A. A similar view has been expressed by the Tribunal, in the case of Bathija International . Vs DCIT in ITA No. 652/Mum/2016 and held that prior to 01/06/2015. The Ld. AO is not empowered to levy late fee prescribed u/s 234E of the Act. The ITAT, Vishakhapatnam Bench, in the case of Naveen Kumar Hanjarimal in ITA No. 7 & 8 /Vizag/2016 had considered an identical issue and held that before insert....