2022 (12) TMI 1213

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the late fee charged under section 234E whereas as per explanation furnished and material placed on record, late fees is not chargeable. (b) 2. Without prejudice to the above, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the late fees levied u/s 234E of the Act amounting to Rs.30,600/- without properly adjudicating ground no. 3, reproduced as under:- "Without prejudice, that the TDS(CPC) has erred on facts and law by levying the late filing fees under section 234E of the Act whereas as per facts and circumstances of the case the time limit defined under rule 31A read with section 200(3) o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....necessary consideration while disposing this appeal. The appellant mailed written submissions on 15-12-2021 wherein it has been submitted that she was under the bonafide belief that time limits have been extended till December 31st, 2020 by the Taxation and other laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) 2020 in time of COVID 19 Pandemic which is in accordance wherein several timelines mentioned in IT Act has been extended till 31st December 2020. Secondly, it was contended that she had voluntarily deducted tax u/s 194A on interest payments though her gross receipts were less than 1 crores in the immediately preceding year i.e FY 2018-19 and therefore she should not be considered as a person responsible for deduction of tax under Chapter-XVII....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubmit the TDS statement within prescribed time. So, the appellant having deducted the tax has the obligation to file the quarterly TDS statements within the prescribed time limit which she failed to fulfill by filing the such statement with some delay. Therefore, CPC(TDS) was justified in levying late fee u/s 234E amounting to Rs 30,600/-. The grounds are accordingly dismissed." 6. The appellant assessee alleged that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the late fee charged under section 234E whereas as per explanation furnished and material placed on record, late fees is not chargeable; that without prejudice to the above, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and o....