M/S MGN KHALSA HIGH SCHOOL , JALANDHAR V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 16/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7062 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M P SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; TDS
• Section: 234E; 200A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.16, 17 & 18/ASR/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 13-14 & 2014-15 M/S M.G.N KHALSA HIGH SCHOOL, KAPURTHALA ROAD, BASTI BAWA KHEL, JALANDHAR. DISTT. JALANDHAR [PAN:AABAM5691H] VS. ACIT CPC CELL- TDS AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-3, 144001, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P. 201010 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. P. N. ARORA (ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. M. P. SINGH (CIT DR) DATE OF HEARING: 14.06.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25.07.2019 ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THESE ARE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-1, JALANDHAR DATED 22.11.2018 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 & 2014-15. SINCE THE COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED, ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLI DATED ORDER. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS, THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IS WHETHER THE FEE A S PRESCRIBED U/S 234E COULD BE LEVIED IN INTIMATION U/S 200A FOR THE DEFAUL T IN FURNISHING E-TDS STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1ST JUNE, 2015. 2.1 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE ITAT HA S DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SIBIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT(TDS) IN ITA NO.90/ASR/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED JUNE 09, 2015 & ACCORD ING TO THE FINDINGS ITA NO. 16, 17 & 18 /ASR/2019 M/S MGN KHALSA HIGH SCHOOL, JALANDHAR VS. ACIT, CPC CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD 2 OF THE ITAT, PRIOR TO 1ST JUNE, 2015, THERE WAS NO EN ABLING PROVISIONS THEREIN FOR RAISING A DEMAND IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEE S U/S 234E & LEVY OF FEES U/S 234E WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE ADJUSTMEN TS CONTEMPLATED U/S 200A. 2.2 IT WAS FURTHER FAIRLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT THERE IS NO JUDGMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ON THIS ISSUE. HOWE VER, HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FATHERAJ SINGHVI VS. UNION OF INDIA (2016) 73 TAXMANN.COM 252 HAD LAID DOWN A CLEAR PROPO SITION THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 200A W.E.F. 1-6-2015 HAS PROSPECTIV E EFFECT AND IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE PERIOD OF RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEA RS PRIOR TO 1-6- 2015. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE I MPUGNED NOTICES GIVEN BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT U/S 200A WERE FOR THE P ERIOD PRIOR TO 1-6- 2015, THEN THE SAME WERE ILLEGAL AND INVALID. IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH THAT THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KOURANI V. UNION OF INDIA (2017) 83 TAXMANN.COM 137/ 249 TAXMAN 402 HAD DIFFERED FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HIGH COURT OF KA RNATAKA IN THE CASE OF FATHERAJ SINGHVI V. UOI (2016) 73 TAXMANN.COM 252 AN D HELD THAT IT WAS ALWAYS OPEN FOR THE REVENUE TO CHARGE FEES IN TERMS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT SINCE, THE RETURNS OF TDS WERE FILED AFTER 2016 AND WERE PROCESSED AFTER 2016 WHEN THERE WAS ENABLING PROVISION IN SECTION 200A OF THE ACT FOR LEVYING LATE FEES U/S 234E OF THE ACT, LATE FILING FEE S LEVIED BY AO WAS UPHELD BY CIT (A). 2.3 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PUNE BENCH OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 25.10.2018 IN THE CASE OF MEDICAL SUPERINT ENDENT RURAL HOSPITAL, DOBI BK VS. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GAZIABAD [2018] 100 TAXMANN.COM 78 (PUNE-TRIB.) HAS HELD THAT SINCE AMENDMENT TO SECTIO N 200A WITH EFFECT FROM 1-6-2015 IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, ASSESSING OFFICER W HILE PROCESSING TDS RETURNS FOR PERIOD PRIOR TO 1-6-2015 WAS NOT EMPO WERED TO CHARGE FEES ITA NO. 16, 17 & 18 /ASR/2019 M/S MGN KHALSA HIGH SCHOOL, JALANDHAR VS. ACIT, CPC CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD 3 UNDER SECTION 234E BY WAY OF INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER SECT ION 200A IN RESPECT OF DEFAULTS BEFORE 1-6-2015. IT HAS BEEN FURTHE R HELD IN THE ABOVE SAID JUDGEMENT OF THE PUNE BENCH THAT WHERE THERE IS D IFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS ON AN ISSUE, THEN THE ONE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA), IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY D ECISION RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. PARA NO.17 OF THIS JUDG MENT IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF QUICK REFERENCE:- 'BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY ALSO REFER TO THE ORDER OF C IT(A) IN RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN RAJESH KOURANI (SUPRA). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE IS SETTLED IN FA VOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF FATHERAJ SINGHVI (SUPRA). SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY RELI ED ON THE SAID RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAK A, THE CIT(A) HAS MIS-REFERRED TO BOTH DECISIONS OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT; BUT THE CIT(A) HAS FAIL ED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SETTLED LAW THAT WHERE THERE IS DIFF ERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS ON AN ISSUE, THEN THE ON E IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD.(SUPRA), IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DECISION BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA V. UNION OF INDIA [2015] 54 TAXM ANN.COM 200 HAD DECIDED THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT AND HAD HELD THEM TO BE ULTRA VICES BUT HAD NO T DECIDED THE SECOND ISSUE OF AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO SECTION 200A OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01.06.2015. IN VIEW THEREOF, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN SERIES OF CASES, WE DELETE THE LATE FILING FEES CHARGED U NDER SECTION ITA NO. 16, 17 & 18 /ASR/2019 M/S MGN KHALSA HIGH SCHOOL, JALANDHAR VS. ACIT, CPC CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD 4 234E OF THE ACT FOR THE TDS RETURNS FOR THE PERIOD PR IOR TO 01.06.2015.' 2.4 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDERS OF THE PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITAT MAHARASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIAT ION V. DY. CIT [2016] 74 TAXMANN.COM 6 (PUNE-TRIB.) & VIDYA VARDHAN I EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION V. DY. CIT [2017] 88 TAXMANN.COM 8 94 (PUNE-TRIB.) 2.5 IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE STATED FACTS & LAW SINCE THERE IS NO JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARY ANA HIGH COURT ON THIS ISSUE BUT THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AND PUNE BENCH OF THE ITAT & JURISDICTIONAL BENCH HAVE DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. [1973] 88 ITR 19 2 (SC) IN WHICH IT HAS HELD THAT WHEN THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETW EEN DIFFERENT COURTS ON AN ISSUE, THEN THE ONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS T O BE FOLLOWED. THIS PRINCIPLE OF LAW HAS ALSO BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PETRON ENGG. CONSTRUCTION (P.) LTD. & ANR. V. C BDT & ORS. [1988] 75 CTR (SC): [1989] 175 ITR 523 (SC). 2.6 IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEVY OF FEE U/S 2 34E IS ILLEGAL AND IS NOT CALLED FOR AND IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR:- G S S S HARI KE KALAN ICT SOCIETY VS. DCIT (TDS) GHAZI ABAD IN ITA NO. 103/ASR/2015, ORDER DATED 09/06/2015 RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2013-14. DABRA VS. DCIT (TDS) GHAZIABAD IN ITA NO. 100 & 101/ ASR/2015, ORDER DATED 09/06/2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. ITA NO. 16, 17 & 18 /ASR/2019 M/S MGN KHALSA HIGH SCHOOL, JALANDHAR VS. ACIT, CPC CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD 5 3. THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF RAJESH KOURANI (SUPRA). FURTHER, HE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 5. IN CASE OF GITA STAR HOTELS & RESORTS PRIVATE LTD., JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD (IN ITA NO. 14/JP/2017 DATED 29.10.2018) WHERE, ONE OF US WAS A MEMBER OF THE BENCH, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE UNDIS PUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS TDS RETURN (FORM 26Q) FOR THE FO URTH QUARTER OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 ON 26.12.2012 AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSE D AND INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A WAS ISSUED VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12 .2013 MUCH PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 200A OF THE ACT W.E.F. 1.6. 2015 EMPOWERING THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVYING THE FEES UNDER SECTION 23 4E OF THE ACT. IT IS THEREFORE NOT A CASE OF CONTINUING DEFAULT WHERE TH E ASSESSEE HAS DEFAULTED IN FURNISHING THE TDS STATEMENT EVEN AFTE R 1.6.2015 AND THEREAFTER, THE DEMAND FOR PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER SE CTION 234E HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN CASE OF FATHER AJ SINGHVI (SUPRA), THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE PROV ISIONS OF AMENDED SECTION 200A ARE PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. FURTHER, T HE DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF M/S. DUNDLO D SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN AND OTHERS (SUPRA) AS RELIED BY LD. CIT (A) IS IN T HE CONTEXT OF VALIDITY OF SECTION 234E, BUT NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF POWER OF AO FOR LEVY OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E PRIOR TO 1.6.2015. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO. 16, 17 & 18 /ASR/2019 M/S MGN KHALSA HIGH SCHOOL, JALANDHAR VS. ACIT, CPC CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD 6 WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD P RIOR TO 01.06.2015, WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO CHARGE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E O F THE ACT. HENCE, THE DEMAND RAISED BY WAY OF CHARGING THE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IS NOT VALID AND THE SAME IS DELETED. 6. IN THE AFORESAID DECISION, THE TDS RETURN (FORM 26Q) FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 WAS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE ON 26.12.2012 AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED AND INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A WAS ISSUED ON 15.12.2013 MUCH PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2 00A OF THE ACT W.E.F. 1.6.2015 EMPOWERING THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVYING TH E FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. IN THAT FACTUAL BACKGROUND, IT WAS HELD THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE OF CONTINUING DEFAULT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DEFAULTED IN FURNISHING THE TDS STATEMENT EVEN AFTER 1.6.2015 AND THEREFORE, THE DE MAND FOR PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E WAS DELETED. 7. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN ANOTHER CASE IN CASE OF M/S AJMER THERMOTECH PVT. LTD. VS ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD (IN ITA NO. 763/JP/20 17 DATED 23.01.2019 WHERE, ONE OF US WAS A MEMBER OF THE BENCH, IT WAS HEL D AS UNDER: 8. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS TDS RETURN IN FORM NO. 24Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2015 ON 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED AND AN INTIMATION DATED 18 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 WAS ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 200A OF THE ACT. THUS, BOT H THE FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AND PROCESSING THE REOF HAS HAPPENED MUCH AFTER 1.6.2015 I.E, THE DATE OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE AO U/S 200A(1)(C) TO LEVY FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF T HE ACT. EVEN THOUGH THE QUARTERLY RETURN PERTAINS TO QUARTER ENDED 31.3 .2015, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THERE IS A CONTINUING DEFAULT EVEN AFTER 1.6.2 015 AND THE RETURN WAS ACTUALLY FILED ON 12.09.2015. THE SAID PROVISIONS C ANNOT BE READ TO SAY ITA NO. 16, 17 & 18 /ASR/2019 M/S MGN KHALSA HIGH SCHOOL, JALANDHAR VS. ACIT, CPC CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD 7 THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME FO R THE PERIOD FALLING AFTER 1.6.2015 AND THERE IS A DELAY ON HIS PART TO FILE T HE RETURN IN TIME, HE WILL SUFFER THE LEVY OF FEES, HOWEVER, AN ASSESSEE WHO HAS DELAYED THE FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME EVEN PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1.06.2015, HE CAN BE ABSOLVED FROM SUCH LEVY EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A CONTINUOUS DEFAULT ON HIS PART EVEN AFTER 1.6.2015. IN OUR VIEW, THE A O HAS ACQUIRED THE JURISDICTION TO LEVY THE FEES AS ON 1.06.2015 AND T HEREFORE, ANY RETURN FILED AND PROCESSED AFTER 1.6.2015 WILL FALL WITHIN HIS JUR ISDICTION WHERE ON OCCURRENCE OF ANY DEFAULT ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE, HE CAN LEVY FEE SO MANDATED U/S 234E OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IRRESPECTI VE OF THE PERIOD TO WHICH THE QUARTERLY RETURN PERTAINS, WHERE THE RETURN IS FILED AFTER 1.6.2015, THE AO CAN LEVY FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. AT THE SAME TIME, IN TERMS OF DETERMINING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH F EES CAN BE LEVIED, ONLY SAVING COULD BE THAT FOR THE PERIOD OF DELAY FALLIN G PRIOR TO 1.06.2015, THERE COULD NOT BE ANY LEVY OF FEES AS THE ASSUMPTI ON OF JURISDICTION TO LEVY SUCH FEES HAVE BEEN HELD BY THE COURTS TO BE P ROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. HOWEVER, WHERE THE DELAY CONTINUES BEYOND 1.06.2015, THE AO IS WELL WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION TO LEVY FEES UNDER SECTION 2 34E FOR THE PERIOD STARTING 1.06.2015 TO THE DATE OF ACTUAL FILING OF THE TDS RETURN. IN LIGHT OF THE SAME, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LEVY OF FEES UND ER SECTION 234E IS UPHELD FOR THE PERIOD 1.06.2015 TO THE DATE OF ACTU AL FILING OF THE TDS RETURN WHICH IS 12.09.2015 AND THE BALANCE FEE SO L EVIED IS HEREBY DELETED. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. 8. IN LIGHT OF AFORESAID TWO DECISIONS, WHAT NEED T O BE EXAMINED IN THE INSTANT CASE IS THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE TDS R ETURNS AND WHETHER IT IS A CASE OF CONTINUED DEFAULT EVEN AFTER THE PERIOD STARTING 1.6.2015 EMPOWERING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LEVY THE FEES UNDER SECTION 23 4E OF THE ACT. THE UNDISPUTED ITA NO. 16, 17 & 18 /ASR/2019 M/S MGN KHALSA HIGH SCHOOL, JALANDHAR VS. ACIT, CPC CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD 8 FACTS WHICH ARE EMERGING FROM THE RECORDS IS THAT T HE TDS RETURN (FORM 24Q) FOR THE 4TH QUARTER OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31.05.2013 AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED AND INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A WAS ISSUED ON 18.08.2013 MUCH PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 200A OF THE ACT W.E.F. 1.6.2015. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF APPEAL NO . 17/ASR/19, THE TDS RETURN (FORM 24Q) FOR THE 2ND QUARTER OF FINANCIAL YEAR 20 13-14 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 07.03.2014 AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED AN D INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A WAS ISSUED ON 15.03.2014. SIMILARLY, I N RESPECT OF APPEAL NO. 18/ASR/19, THE TDS RETURN (FORM 24Q) FOR THE 3RD QU ARTER OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 07.03.2014 AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED AND INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A WAS ISSUED ON 15.0 3.2014. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT THOUGH THERE HAS BEEN A DELAY IN FILING OF TDS RETURNS, HOWEVER, IN ALL THESE CASES, THE TDS RETURN HAS BEEN FILED AND PROCESSED MUCH BEFORE 1.6.2015 AND NONE OF THE THREE CASES INVOLVED A CASE OF CONTINUI NG DEFAULT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DEFAULTED IN FURNISHING THE TDS STATEMENT EVEN AFTER 01.06.2015. 9. FURTHER, IN VIEW OF THE SETTLED LAW THAT WHERE THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS ON AN ISSUE, THEN THE ONE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD.(SUPRA). IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DECISION BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AND IN THE ENTIRE TY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR LEVY OF FEES UND ER SECTION 234E AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED IN ALL THREE CASES. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE ALLOWED. ITA NO. 16, 17 & 18 /ASR/2019 M/S MGN KHALSA HIGH SCHOOL, JALANDHAR VS. ACIT, CPC CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD 9 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.07.2019. SD/- SD/- (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 25.07.2019 GANESH KR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) M.G.N KHALSA HIGH SCHOOL, JALANDHAR, PUNJAB (2) THE ACIT CPC CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD, U. P (3) THE CIT(A)-1, JALANDHAR (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ITA NO. 16, 17 & 18 /ASR/2019 M/S MGN KHALSA HIGH SCHOOL, JALANDHAR VS. ACIT, CPC CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD 10 DATE INIT IAL 1 . DRAFT DICTATED ON PS/SR. PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR PS/SR. PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS PS/SR. PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS/SR. PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS/SR. PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER