2023 (4) TMI 462

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e dispose of these appeals by way of this common order. 2. These appeals are filed with a delay of 64 days each and the reason for such delay is attributed to the oversight of the chartered accountant in identifying a suitable counsel to file the appeal in Tribunal, due to the heavy pre-occupation of audit and filing of returns which were extended till 07/11/2022. The delay is 64 days and there is no grievance of Revenue of any prejudice being caused due to this delay. Prima facie we do not find any malafide on the part of the assessee in preferring these appeals with delay. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal. 3. Only issue which needs to be adjudicated in thes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter 1st day of June, 2015 even where the returns were filed belatedly by the deductor after 1st June, 2015, where it clearly related to the period prior to 01/06/2015. 6. Per contra, learned DR submits that the assessee furnished the returns late and, therefore, as rightly pointed by the learned CIT(A) levy of late fee and penalty under section 200A of the Act is consequential and mandatory. 7. It is, therefore, clear that the only issue that falls for our consideration is whether late fee and consequential interest could be levied in respect of the TDS statements relating to the period prior to 01/06/2015. We find that the said issue has been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors vs. Un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the time when the fee was provided under Section 234E, the Parliament also provided for its utility for giving privilege under Section 271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondent-Revenue that insertion of clause (c) to (f) under Section 200A(1) should be treated as retroactive in character and not prospective. 22. It ....