TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee on 22.03.2018. It appears from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that she has given only one opportunity to the assessee - we find merit in the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that no proper opportunity has been granted - we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case - Assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA.No.3836/Del./2018 & ITA.No.3835/Del./2018 - - - Dated:- 7-10-2021 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member And Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Rakesh Kumar Garg, C.A. For the Revenue : Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. DR ORDER PER R.K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... printing of fabrics and could not filed TDS return within time. Examination of facts reveals that late filing fee u/s 234E is not a penalty and is in accordance with law no interference is required as this stage. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on merits of case was not justified in sustaining penalty under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of ₹ 10722/- for IVth Qtr (26Q) of F.Y. 2012-2013 even the notice for fixing the date of appeal is received later than the date of hearing. In fact date of hearing was 20.03.2018 whereas such notice was received by the assessee on 22.03.2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying on various decisions submitted that since the intimation issued by the A.O. in the present case is for the period prior to 01.06.2015, therefore, the same is beyond the scope of adjustment provided under section 200A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and, therefore, the demand raised by the A.O. charging fee under section 234E is not valid. For the above proposition he relied on the following decisions : 1. Order of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Dharam Deep Public School vs., DCIT in ITA.Nos. 2317 to 2319/Del./2016 dated 05.01.2018. 2. Gajanan Construction vs., DCIT CPC reported in [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 350. 3. Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Samika Learnings Pvt. Ltd., vide ITA.No.4050 to 4054/Del./2016. 6. The Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought to statute even prior to 01.06.2015 when section 200A(1) was amended to include clause (c). The Hon'ble High Court has held that section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing mechanism for processing a statement of TDS and for making adjustments whereas section 234E is a charging provision creating a charge for levying fee for certain defaults in filing the statements. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that w.e.f 01.06.2015 the provision of section 200A specifically provides for computing the fee payable under section 234E. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that various High courts have upheld the constitutional validity of provisions of section 234E. In several other cases, the Courts have upheld the levy of fee under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at liberty to pass appropriate order as per Law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, ITA.No.3836/Del./2018 of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA.No.3835/Del./2018 A.Y. 2014-2015 : 9. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds : 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on merits of case was not justified in sustaining fine under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of ₹ 18430/- for IVth Qtr (26Q) of F.Y. 2013-2014 even the notice for fixing the date of appeal is received on a later date than the date of hearing. Intact date of hearing was 20.03.2018 whereas such notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
