2022 (11) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') in respect of late filing of TDS statement in Form No. 27Q. 2. The following grounds have been raised by the assessee in this appeal 1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A), NFAC in Appeal No. NFAC/2015-16/10020753 dated 28.04.2022 has erred in passing that order in contravention of the provisions of S. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the charging of late filing fee of Rs. 3,64,600/- charged u/s 234E in respect of late filing of TDS statement even when the appellant had filed TDS statement in time but inadvertently ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Sailender Singh,(a NRI having PAN: EYDPS8237Q) for Rs. 29,04,000/- on 27.11.2015 and deposited the TDS at the applicable rate, i.e., 20.60% on 07.12.2015 and filed the TDS return inadvertently, mistakenly, in Form No. 26QB, well in time on 07.12.2015, instead of in Form No. 27Q, u/s 195 of The Income Tax Act, 1961; that when the assessee came to know the facts and confirmed the procedure, he had applied for the refund of the TDS deposited earlier so that he could file the TDS statement in the prescribed Form No. 27Q, which TDS was refunded by the Income Tax Department on 22.12.2020; that the assessee again deposited the same without taking much time, on 29.12.2020; and that the TDS statement in Form No. 27Q was also filed on 11.01.2020 bu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tent wrong filing of TDS Statement, i.e., in Form No. 26QB, rather than in the applicable Form No. 27Q, there is no case for levy of late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has also sought to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of 'Rashmikant Kundalia and Others Vs. Union of India', 373 ITR 268 (Bom.), wherein, it was held that section 234E of the Act is not punitive in nature but a fee which is fixed charge for the extra service which the Department has to provide due to late filing of TDS statements. Again the proposition laid down cannot be controverted. However, this decision too does not deal with the facts at hand. It is only l that it was due to inadvertent error that the TDS state....