Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1648 - AT - Income TaxConstitutional validity of Section 234E - intimation of the demand notices U/s 200A - Late filing fee under Section 234E - Held that:- In Mr Rashmikant Kundalia and another Versus Union of India and others [2015 (2) TMI 412 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that Section 234E of the Act is not punitive in nature but a fee which is a fixed charge for the extra service which the department has to prove due to the late filing of the TDS statements. Hence from both the decisions relied upon by the ld. DR, the issue of power of imposing late fee is not decided but the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Fatheraj Singhvi & ors. Vs. Union of India [2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and held that the late fee U/s 234E of the Act has raised vide impugned demand notice U/s 200A of the Act. We find force in the contention of the ld. AR of the assessee. If there is conflicting views taken by the two Hon'ble Courts, then the view, which favours the assessee should be adopted. In this regard, the ld AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014 (9) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT). In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (supra), the demand so raised are directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|