TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....118(1) of ld. CIT(A). Appeal in I.T.A. No.63/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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....late fees of Rs. 21800 u/s 234E of IT act and interest thereon u/s 220(2) of IT act Rs. 16568/- in order passed 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. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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.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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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). 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 or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 13.09.2021 is a duplicate appeal which has been filed twice. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) did not considered that there are separate orders u/s 200A/154 of I. T. Act passed by ACIT-TDS, CPC, for Form No. 2403 and for Form No. 26Q3 and thus, the assessee has rightly filed separate appeals for two Forms i.e. 2403 and Form No. 2603 for F. Y. -2014-15 and thus there is no duplicate appeals. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) did not considered that the appeal filed by the Assessee for Form 24Q3 are emanating from different Orders passed by ACIT-TDS, CPC and merely because the quarter for both the forms were same, the Ld. CIT (A) wrongly conceived that they are duplicate appeals and treated the appeal filed against Form 2403 for F. Y. 2014-15 as infructuous. It is therefore prayed that the appeal in Form No.24Q3 filed against the order of ACIT- TDS, CPC dated 13.9.2021 cannot be treated as infructuous." (C.1) In view of the foregoing, the ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee's appeal was infructuous, is wrong. On merits, the ld. A.R. for the assessee relied on the aforesaid orders in the cases of Shivansh Infra....