2019 (1) TMI 1850

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... convenience. 2. On perusal of record, we find that there was a delay of 103 days in filing these appeals by the assessee before us. To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing these appeals, wherein it was affirmed that on account of heavy work for finalising accounts of clients, preparing audit reports and filing of income tax returns, the AR of the assessee has lost sight in filing the appeals in time, hence, there was a delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT, which may be condoned. As the assessee was prevented by sufficient reason for filing the appeals belatedly, we condone the same and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee company filed i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ls under consideration: "1. The order of the learned CIT(Appeals) confirming the order of the AO is erroneous both on facts and in law in so far as it is prejudicial to the assessee. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s. 234E by the AO, in spite of decision of Supreme Court that when two views are possible the view that favours the assessee should be followed as there are decisions of other courts wherein levy of penalty u/s.234E was deleted. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing . 7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that similar issue came up for consideration before the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;ble Karnataka High Court held that levy of fees u/s 234E while processing returns, TDS u/s 200A prior to 01.06.2015 was without any authority of law. With two divergent view of the Hon'ble High Courts on the issue and in the absence of any decision by the jurisdictional High Court, we concur with the learned Counsel for the assessee that as per the well accepted rule of construction, if two reasonable constructions of a statute are possible the construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. In view of the same, respectfully following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi (Supra), we hold that the fees levied in all the present cases u/s 234E prior to 01.06.2015 in the intimations made u/s 20....