AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP :
These assessee’s three appeals being ITA Nos.5019, 5020 & 5021/Del/2026, for assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2014-15, arise against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders, all dated 05.12.2025, involving proceedings under section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.
At the threshold, it is noted that there is delay of 63 days in filing the appeals by the assessee in respect of assessment years 2013-14 & 2015-16. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, we are of the considered view that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeals, hence, the same is condoned and both the appeals are admitted for adjudication.
We note with the able assistance coming from both the sides that the assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA No. 5019/Del/2026 (A.Y. 2013-14) raises the following substantive grounds:
1.The NFAC erred in law and on facts in upholding the levy of late filing fee u/s. 234E for F.Y. 2013-14. The fee u/s. 234E could not have been levied through the mechanism of Section 200A prior to 01.06.2025.
2.The NFAC grievously erred in law in holding that the debatable nature of the issue made the Section 154 rectification application not maintainable. The NFAC contradicted itself by simultaneously deciding the merits of the levy against the appellant.
3.The NFAC erred in ignoring the overwhelming and binding body of judicial precedent – including rulings of the High Courts of Karnataka and Kerala – uniformly holding that fee u/s. 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to 1.6.2015.
4.The NFAC erred in law in confirming the interest levied u/s. 220(2) of the Act in the absence of valid demand, no interest is leviable.
5.The NFAC erred in relying upon the minority view of the Gujarat High Court and the Madras High Court while ignoring the majority view and the binding precedent of the Karnataka High Court and other High Courts which take the opposite view. 6. The penalty order u/s. 154 passed by the CPC, TDS Ghaziabad and upheld by NFAC is bad in law, void ab initio, beyond jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.
Learned departmental representative vehemently argues that in light of the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion that both the lower authorities herein have rightly levied section 234E late filing fee in the assessee’s/deductor’s cases. And that the impugned statutory provision has already been held applicable in all preceding period before 01.06.2015 as well in their lordships’ decision.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective pleadings. We note that in various other judicial precedents i.e. Shri Fatheraj Singhvi & Others vs. UOI (Karnataka High Court) W.P. Nos. 7075-7079/2015 & 14749-14762/2015, Shree Ayappa Educational Charitable Trust vs. UOI (Karnataka High Court, 2017), United Metals vs. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court), 2021), Rajesh Kourani vs. UOI (Gujarat High Court, Civil Application No. 302/2014, Nila Bakers and Confectionaries (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2022) 139 taxmann.com 535 (Ker) as well as this tribunal’s in Vkare Bio Sciences (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2022] 134 taxmann.com 7 (Delhi - Trib.) have adjudicated the very issue in the assessee’s favour thereby holding that the above filing fee provision in section 234E of the Act does not cover any assessment year prior to 01.06.2015. That being the case, we hereby quote Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1971] 80 ITR 14 (Kol.) to decide the instant issue of retrospective applicability of section 234E of the Act in assessee’s favour in very terms to delete the impugned late filing fee levied by both the learned lower authorities. This appeal is allowed.
Same order to follow in the assessee’s remaining two appeals ITA Nos.5020 & 5021/Del/2026.
These assessee’s 03 appeals ITA Nos.5019, 5020 & 5021/Del/2026 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.