TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the applicable Form No. 27Q, there is no case for levy of late filing fee u/s 234E. CIT(A) has not also taken into consideration the fact that had the intention of the assessee been otherwise, it would not have deposited the entire TDS amount. Mere technical breach cannot lead to the assessee being penalized. CIT(A) has further not considered the fact that actually, no loss has been caused to the Revenue. The case of M/s G.B Builders Vs. ACIT [ 2022 (4) TMI 1313 - ITAT AHMEDABAD ] is to the same effect. Therein also, it was held that a mere technical inadvertent error did not invite levy of late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act. The case of Block Development Officer, Chaksu, Jaipur [ 2020 (6) TMI 565 - ITAT JAIPUR ] on the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had filed TDS statement in time but inadvertently in Form 26QB and on realizing the mistake filed the statement in Form 27Q but now it was obviously filed late. 3. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same. 3. The facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of architecture. The assessee purchased a property for Rs. 29,04,000/- on 27.11.2015 from one Sh. Salinder Singh, a NRI (PAN: EYDPS8237Q) and deducted the TDS of Rs. 5,98,224/- at the prescribed rate, i.e., @ 20.60 percent and deposited the same on 07.12.2015. The assessee filed the TDS statement in Form 26QB on 07.12.2015, instead of in Form 27Q. On coming to knowledge that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in Form No. 27Q was also filed on 11.01.2020 but the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC confirmed the late filing fee u/s 234E of Rs. 3,64,600/-. 7. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in M/s G.B Builders, Ahmedabad Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 626 /Ahd/2018, for assessment year 2015-16), order dated 25.4.2022. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR has placed reliance on the impugned order. Further, she sought to rely on the decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Block Development Officer, Chaksu, Jaipur Vs. ACIT (ITA Nos. 891, 892, 893, 894, 895 896/JP/2019), wherein, it has been held that late fee u/s 234AE of the Act is mandatory and consequential and so, it cannot be deleted on the ground of reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was due to inadvertent error that the TDS statement was filed in the wrong Form. Had it not been so, there would not have been any question of levy of interest u/s 234E of the Act, which was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) himself. 11. The Ld. CIT(A) has not also taken into consideration the fact that had the intention of the assessee been otherwise, it would not have deposited the entire TDS amount. Mere technical breach cannot lead to the assessee being penalized. 12. The Ld. CIT(A) has further not considered the fact that actually, no loss has been caused to the Revenue. 13. The case of M/s G.B Builders Vs. ACIT (supra) is to the same effect. Therein also, it was held that a mere technical inadvertent error did not invite levy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
