TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de any evidence regarding service of the order on the assessee. We therefore, feel it proper that the appeals filed by the assessee before CIT(A) regarding these outstanding demands intimated to the assessee by the AO as per this letter dated 26.11.2018 should be considered as valid appeals and we proceed to decide these appeals on merit. This is true that before 01.06.2015, demand in respect of fees under section 234E cannot be raised under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessment Year involved in the present appeals are Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16. Hence, these demands are for periods prior to 01.06.2015 and therefore, not sustainable and hence, we delete these demands. This view of us is fortified by the judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is requested that the impugned order be quashed and the returned income from Long-Term capital gains be accepted. The assessment of the amount U/s.68 be deleted and the interest also to be deleted, 3. In the course of hearing, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order rendered in the case of Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT in ITA No.90/Asr/2015 dated 09.06.2015. He submitted a copy of this Tribunal order. He pointed out that this is the finding of the Tribunal in this case that amendment in section 200A has been made by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 as per which a new clause (c) was inserted which prescribed that the fee, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee as not maintainable because of this reason. He submitted that even before the Tribunal, no such order of AO under section 200A has been filed and therefore, the order of CIT(A) should be confirmed. 5. In the rejoinder, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that no order under section 200A has been served on the assessee by the AO and therefore, there is no question of filing the appeal against such order and since for the first time, the fact about outstanding demand was intimated by the AO as per this letter dated 26.11.2018 and the assessee has filed these appeals before CIT(A) and therefore, the same should be considered as the appeals filed by the assessee against the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 26.11.2018 should be considered as valid appeals and we proceed to decide these appeals on merit. This is true that before 01.06.2015, demand in respect of fees under section 234E cannot be raised under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessment Year involved in the present appeals are Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16. Hence, these demands are for periods prior to 01.06.2015 and therefore, not sustainable and hence, we delete these demands. This view of us is fortified by the judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Sri Fatehraj Singhvi vs. CIT in its judgment dated 26.08.2016. In Para 23 of this judgment, it was held that intimation given by the respondent department u/s 200A for the period prio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
