TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1769
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation Orders dated 26.03.2025 passed 154 r.w.s.u/s.200A/206CB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. We find that common issue has been raised by the assessee(s), therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. We will take up the facts from ITA No.2637/PUN/2025 in the case of Shri Shivaji College. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : "1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["the Ld. CIT(A)] has erred in affirming the order u/s 154 read with section 200A of the Income tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] and confirming the levy of late fees of Rs. 41,000/- u/s 234E of the Act in the intimation generated u/s 200A passed in respect of TDS ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. Both the TDS returns have been processed by the CPC prior to 01.06.2015. Now the issue that whether the CPC had jurisdiction to levy fee u/s. 234E of the Act prior to amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 01.06.2025 has been subject matter in various appeals before this Tribunal. In one of the decision referred and relied on by ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of Ram Refrigeration & Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, the Tribunal has held as under : "5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the material placed before us. We observe that the assessee which is a private limited company furnished quarterly returns for F.Y. 2012-13 and the same were processed prior to 01/06/2015 wherein CPC levied late fee u/s. 23....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....abad has imposed late fee u/s 234E of the Act and thereby, computed interest u/s. 220(2) of the Act. We find the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the CPC on the ground that as per the statutory provisions inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 payment of late fee for filing TDS late is mandatory. Therefore, the demand raised for levy u/sec.234E for the period prior to 01.06.2015 is very well valid and the levy of late fee u/sec.234E of the Act cannot be assailed 9.1. We find under identical circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dhairyasheel Pralhad Pawar, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, TDS-CPC, Kolhapur ITA. Nos. 950 to 955/ PUN./2022 dated 14.02.2023, has held that no late fee u/sec.234E can be imposed for the periods p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bserved as under: "5. We have heard the common rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for short ITAT, Rules') perused the material placed on records and considered the facts in the light of settled position law. 6. In the context of levy of fees for default, it shall serve to state that, a person liable to deduct any sum under the provisions of chapter XVII of the Act, is under obligation to deliver or furnish a statement u/s 200(3) of the Act within the due date prescribed therein and in the event of default such person is exposed to section 234E of the Act. Although the levy of fees u/s 234E for delay in furnishing statement has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 12. Since facts in the remaining appeals are identical to the facts of the appeal in ITA. No.2049/PUN./2024, therefore, respectfully following our observations in the said appeal, these appeals ITA. Nos. 2050 to 2062/PUN./2024 of the assessee are allowed. 13. To sum-up, ITA. Nos. 2049 to 2062/PUN./2024 of the Assessee are allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files." 6. From the perusal of the findings of this Tribunal and examining the facts of the instant case, we find that the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Pancharatna Buildcon Pvt. Ltd (supra) is squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case and the Ld.DR is unable to place any other binding precedent, we ther....