TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed prior to 1.6.2015 - HELD THAT:- Keeping in mind that technicalities should not stand in the way of rendering substantive justice, as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others [ 2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] we are of the view that interest of justice would be met if the delay in filing appeals by the Assessee before CIT(A) is condoned and the issue with regard to levy of interest u/s.234-E of the Act be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration in accordance with the observations made in this order. - ITA No. 633 to 644/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 24-11-2020 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President And Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member For the Appellant : None ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be. (3) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble by, or the amount of refund due to, him under clause ( d ); and ( f ) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause ( d ) shall be granted to the deductor: Provided that no intimation under this sub-section shall be sent after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the statement shall mean a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the statement- ( i ) of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such statement; ( ii ) in respect of rate of deduction of tax at source, where such rate i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn of TDS while processing a return of TDS u/s.234E of the Act could have been made for tax deducted at source for the assessment years prior to 1.6.2015. 5. The CIT(Appeals) found that some of the appeals were filed by the Assessee belated and the reasons for condonation of delay in filing the appeals were no sufficient. The Assessee claimed before CIT(A) that the controversy regarding levy of interest u/s.234-E of the Act was not clear and clarity emerged only after the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra) . The CIT(A) found that there was inordinate delay in filing the appeals and those details have been set out in the order of CIT(A) for each of the appeals set out in the cause ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the impugned orders of demand u/s.200A of the Act. It is not in dispute that if the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi (supra) is applied then the levy of interest u/s.234-E of the Act would be illegal for returns of TDS in respect of the period prior to 1.6.2015. The present appeals of the Assessee relate to TDS returns filed prior to 1.6.2015. The decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi (supra) was rendered on 26.8.2016. It has been held by the ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of MSV IT Solutions Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward 16(4) ITA Nos. 177 178/Hyd/2018 order dated 26.10.2018 wherein on identical facts noticing that there was no legal remedy prior to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
