TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t condoning the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating the facts of the case. Your appellant prays for condonation of delay and granting an opportunity of hearing before lower authorities. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, following grounds are also taken on merit, 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. The Lower authorities erred in levying the late fee u/s 234E for a sum of Rs. 12,360/- without appreciating the fact that enabling clause of levying fees u/s 200A was added w.e.f. 01/06/2015 and shall apply retrospectively and therefore your appellant prays for deletion of such penalty. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. The Lower authorities erred in charging fees u/s 234E a sum of Rs. Rs. 12,360/- without considering the circumstance limitations, and difficulties faced by the unit which is under direct control of Ministry of Defense, and due to such difficulties like non-availability of BIN, unavailability of trained staff etc., the TDS returns were filled belatedly. Your appellant prays for waiver of the entire fees as charged by A.O.TDS. Your appellant prays for d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e orders passed by the lower authorities and vehemently argued for confirming the late fee levied u/s. 234E of the Act. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The solitary issue in this batch of appeals is against the levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act by CPC for delay in filing the TDS quarterly returns. Assessee filed appeal(s) with a consideration delay and Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC placing reliance on various judicial precedents dismissed the appeals in limine by holding that the appellant has failed to give the sufficient reason with material evidence for the delay in filing of appeal. Finding of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is verbatim for all the quarters under consideration and the same is reproduced below : "5.16 In view of the above, respectfully following the judgments given by the Hon'ble Courts, I am of the considered opinion that the Appellant has failed to give the sufficient reason with material evidence for the delay of filing of appeal. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. Since the condonation of delay is not granted, the Appeal filed is not maintainable on technical grounds. Under the admitted circumstances, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion Date of Filing of Form No.35 Number of Days Delayed Q1 2013-14 31/05/2016 21/03/2023 2485 Q2 2013-14 31/05/2016 21/03/2023 2485 Q3 2013-14 31/05/2016 21/03/2023 2485 Q4 2013-14 31/05/2016 21/03/2023 2485 Q1 2014-15 31/05/2016 21/03/2023 2485 Q2 2014-15 31/05/2016 21/03/2023 2485 Q3 2014-15 31/05/2016 21/03/2023 2485 Q4 2014-15 31/05/2016 21/03/2023 2485 The magnitude of this delay, might, at first glance, suggest significant negligence. However, for a military unit, the operational priorities and resource allocation are fundamentally different from those of a typical commercial enterprise. This prolonged delay is not a reflection of deliberate defiance or mala fide intent on the part of the Assessee. Instead, it is a direct consequence of the systemic limitations and the pronounced absence of specialized resources dedicated to a function considered ancillary to the unit's core mission of national defence. The eventual filing of the appeal, albeit significantly belated, indicates a belated but determined effort towards compliance on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals, we notice that the processing of the TDS returns by CPC have been carried out after 01.06.2015. Now in this given situation before us, it has been contended that the fee levied u/s. 234E upto the date of amendment effective from 01.06.2015 deserved to be deleted and only the fee levied u/s. 234E for the delay from 01.06.2016 onwards needs to be sustained in light of the settled judicial precedents. 14. Though the ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred and relied on various decisions, we find Coordinate Bench, Indore has dealt the very same issue in the case of M/s. Office of The District Prosecution Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.260 to 262/Ind/2019 for A.Yrs. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 order dated 06.03.2020 has held that even in cases where processing of the TDS returns u/s. 200A of the Act is after 01.06.2015, in such cases also fee u/s. 234E of the Act could not be levied upto 01.06.2015 and only for the remaining period of delay from 01.06.2015 onwards fees u/s. 234E of the Act could be levied on the assessee. Relevant observation of the Tribunal reads as under : "7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. 8. From perusal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... where the return is filed after 1.6.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act. At the same time, in terms of determining the period for which fees can be levied, only saving could be that for the period of delay falling prior to 1.06.2015, there could not be any levy of fees as the assumption of jurisdiction to levy such fees have been held by the Courts to be prospective in nature. However, where the delay continues beyond 1.06.2015. the AO is well within his jurisdiction to levy fees under section 234E for the period starting 1.06.2015 to the date of actual filing of the TDS return. In light of the same, in the instant case, the levy of fees under section 234E is upheld for the period 1.06.2015 to the date of actual filing of the TDS return which is 22.07.2015 and the balance fee so levied is hereby deleted. In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed." 9. From perusal of the above decision we find that the issue before us is similar to the issue adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench and therefore respectfully following the decision of Coordinate Bench rendered on 23.01.2019 in the case of Shri Uttam Chand Gangwal (supra) are of the considered view....