2023 (6) TMI 84

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3/LKO/2023 has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the impugned appellate order dated 27.12.2022 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1048277756(1) of ld. CIT(A). Appeal in I.T.A. No.64/LKO/2023 has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the impugned appellate order dated 22.12.2022 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1048171118(1) of ld. CIT(A). Appeal in I.T.A. No.61/LKO/2023 has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the impugned appellate order dated 17.1.2023 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/10488170438(1) of ld. CIT(A). Appeal in I.T.A. No.65/LKO/2023 has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the impugned appellate order dated 22.12.2022 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1048169916(1) of ld. CIT(A). The grounds of appeal are as under: I.T.A. No.60/LKO/2023: 1. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming levy of late fees of Rs. 4,200/- u/s 234E of IT act and interest thereon u/s 220(2) of IT act Rs. 4,529/- in order passed u/s 154 read with 200A of IT Act pertaining to FY 2013-14 ( 4th quarter in Form 26Q) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....u/s 154 read with 200A of IT Act pertaining to FY 2014-15 (3rd. quarter in Form 26Q) without appreciating that the late fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not considering that the mechanism provided for computation of Fees and failure for payment of Fee u/s 200A of IT Act was brought on statue w.e.f 01.06.2015 and thus the said amendment is prospective in nature. 3. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC erred in relying on the judgments pertaining to constitutional validity of section 234E without appreciating that the issue of constitutional validity was never challenged before him and the issue involved in the appeal was w.r.t date of applicability of section 234E of IT Act. 4. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in passing the order, contrary to facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon the Ld. CIT(Appeals). I.T.A. No.63/LKO/2023: 1. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC erred in stating that two appeals have been filed against order u/s 154/200A dated 13-9-21 for Qtr 3 in Form 24Q....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is prospective in nature. 3. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC erred in relying on the judgments pertaining to constitutional validity of section 234E without appreciating that the issue of constitutional validity was never challenged before him and the issue involved in the appeal was w.r.t date of applicability of section 234E of IT Act. 4. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in passing the order, contrary to facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon the Ld. CIT(Appeals). I.T.A. No.65/LKO/2023: 1. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming levy of late fees of Rs. 22400 u/s 234E of IT act and interest thereon u/s 220(2) of IT act Rs. 16128/- in order passed u/s 154 read with 200A of IT Act pertaining to FY 2014-15 ( 4th quarter in Form 24Q) without appreciating that the late fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not considering that the mechanism provided for computation of Fees and failure for payment of Fee u/s 200A of IT Act was brought on statue w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DS) (supra) and Additional DIGP vs. Dy. CIT (TDS) (supra). However, the ld. Sr. D.R. for the Revenue relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). (B.2) We have heard both the sides and we have perused the materials on record. There is no dispute that the issues involved in these appeals are squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders in the cases of Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra), Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS)-II (supra), Dr. Saumya Singh vs. ACIT (supra), Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India (supra), United Metals vs. Income-tax Officer (TDS) (supra) and Additional DIGP vs. Dy. CIT (TDS) (supra). Further, neither side has brought any distinguishing facts and circumstances to our attention, or relevant material, to persuade us to take a different view from the view taken in aforesaid orders in the cases of Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra), Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS)-II (supra), Dr. Saumya Singh vs. ACIT (supra), Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India (supra), United Metals vs. Income-tax Officer (TDS) (supra) and Add....