TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 859
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; ; Rs. 1,60,200/- ii) A.Y. 2014-15 : Rs. 1,99,000/- iii) A.Y. 2015-16 : Rs. 52,000/- 3. Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the cases under appeal, the ITO (TDS) has levied late fee u/s. 234E but prior to insertion of section 200A w.e.f. 1.6.2015, the levy of late fees u/s. 234E can only be made after 1.6.2015. Hence, the levy of late fees by the ITO (TDS) may kindly be deleted. In support of this contention, Ld. A.R. relied on the decision of ITAT Cuttack dated 27.8.2018 passed in ITA Nos. 323 to 332/CTK/2018, copy of which is p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act in Community Health Centre, ITA No. 31/CTK/2017, order dated 14.02.2018, at page 2, observing as under:- "7. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Glee Pharma Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 161 to 163/CTK/2016, order dated 28.08.2017, has held as under:- "5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that on similar issue, this Bench of the Tribunal has deleted the levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act in the above stated case, observing as under: "We have heard both parties and perused the records. We find that the only issue permeating from all the 5 appeals is regarding imposition of levy of fee for late filing TDS return u/s. 234E of the Act, while pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich is in favour of the assessee (CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC)). In such a scenario, we are inclined to follow the order of the Karnataka High Court which has been brought to our knowledge by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 7. The facts in Fatehraj Singh vs. Union of India (supra), which was decided by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court was that for financial year 2012-13 and 2013-14, TDS was deducted by the respective assessees and deposited in the Government account. However, as per the Department, there was delay in filing the return/statement with the details of the persons from whom the TDS was deducted including the details and the persons concerned and the transactions etc. The Department issued intim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest. 23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid. 24. If the facts of the present cases are examined in light of the aforesaid observation and discussion, it appears that in all matters, the intimation given in purported exercise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levy of fee under section 234E is set aside and fee levied u/s. 243E in all the appeals are ordered to be deleted. However, the other adjustments made by the AO in the impugned intimation shall stand as such. "6. In the appeals before us, the financial year involved is 2013-14. Therefore, respectfully following the precedent, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act in all the quarters and allow the appeals filed by the assessee. 8. We on perusal of all the appeals under consideration find that the issue involved in the appeals i.e. ITA Nos. 323 to 331/CTK/2018 are covered by the above orders of the Tribunal as the amendment to Section 200(3) of the IT. Act was made only ....