TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1042
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vely by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)") u/s. 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment years |shown as above, wherein learned CIT(A) has confirmed the orders each dated 28.04.2024 passed u/s 154 r.w.s. 200A/206C of the Act by the CPC and dismissed assessee's appeals. 2. At the very outset, we notice that registry has reported that all these appeals are time-barred due to a delay of 84-85 days. Delay condonation applications along with an affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Account officer of the appellant are on record, wherein, it has been stated that the delay was caused due to the transfer of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d rectification applications u/s 154 of the Act against the intimations orders passed u/s 200A of the Act, which were rejected by CPC, vide orders each dated 28.04.2024. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeals before Ld. CIT(A) against the orders passed by the assessing officer. Ld CIT(A) dismissed assessee's all four appeals. 6. Appellant assessee has preferred these second appeals on the common ground that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of late filing fee imposed by the assessing officer (CPC), ignoring the fact that the belatedly filed TDS returns were processed and accepted by the CPC without prior deposit of said late filing fee and without affording reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xmann.com 137 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing the mechanism for processing a TDS statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustment. The Ld. CIT(A) has further held that this decision was delivered after considering numerous ITAT and High Court decisions and therefore this decision in 'Rajesh Kaurani' (Supra), holds the fields. 9. It is seen that prior 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act. The provision of Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could not be applied retrospectively, unless it is expressly provided in the Act, to l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt decisions and so, this decision in 'Rajesh Kaurani' (supra) holds the field. 4. We do not find the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) to be correct in law. As against 'Rajesh Kaurani' (supra), 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs.UOI', 73 Taxmann.com 252 (Ker), as also admitted by the ld. CIT(A) himself, decides the issue in favour of the assessee. The only objection of the ld. CIT(A) is that this decision and others to the same effect have been taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court while passing 'Rajesh Kaurani' (supra). However, while observing so, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to take into consideration the settled law that where there is a cleavage of opinion between different High Courts on an issue, the one in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vs. DCIT (TDS)', order dated 09.06.2015 passed in ITA No.90/ASR/2015, for A.Y.2013-14, by the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal, and 'Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS) Ghaziabad', order dated 15.09.2016, in ITA No.378/ASR/2015, for A.Y. 2012- 13, the grievance of the assessee is accepted as justified. The order under appeal is reversed. The levy of the fee is cancelled." 11. In the above view, respectfully following 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Ors' (Supra), 'Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Supra), 'Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', (Supra), and our own finding in the case of 'Sudershan Goyal' (Supra), we accept the grievance of the assessee's as genuine. Accordingly, the orders of the CIT(A) are reversed and the fee so levied....