R.R.Enterpries, Ahmedabad V. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Gaziabad

ITA 3401/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9609 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD - , , BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.3401/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) R.R.ENTERPRISE 2543, B/H.GOZARIA POLE HALIM NI KHADKI SHAHPUR AHMEDABAD-380 001 / VS. THE DCIT CPC TDS GAZIABAD $ ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACFR 1750 N ( $' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ()$' / RESPONDENT ) $' * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASEEM THAKKAR, AR ()$' + * / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.PANDA, SR.DR ,- + . / DATE OF HEARING 09/02/2016 /0 + . / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10/02/2016 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-8, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 01/09/2015 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR (AY) 2014-15. ITA NO.3401/AHD / 2015 RR ENTERPRISE VS. DCIT-CPC(TDS) ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 2 - 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DY.COMM.OF INCOM E TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD, U.P. U/S.200A OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE COMM. REF.NO.TDS /1314/26Q/D/10000891668 1 DTD. 19/05/2014 IN RESPECT OF FORM NO.26Q FILED BY THE A PPELLANT FOR QUARTER -3 OF F.YR.2013-14 WHICH IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. HENCE THE SAME SHOULD BE CANCELLED. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE DY.COMM.OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD, U.P. IN PASSING INT IMATION ORDER U/S.200A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT GIVING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT. HENCE THE ORDER SO PASSED WITHOUT GIVIN G AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT BEING AGAINST THE PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE REQUIRES TO BE QUASHED. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE CHARGING OF RS.510/- FOR THE INTERES T ON ALLEGED LATE PAYMENT OF TDS AND RS.17,061/- FOR THE ALLEGED LATE FILING FEES U/S.234E OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 BY THE DY.CIT, CENTRALIZED PRO CESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD,D U.P. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEAR ING OF APPEAL. 3. GROUNDS NOS.1 TO 3 ARE INTER-CONNECTED AND, T HEREFORE THE SAME ARE DECIDED TOGETHER. 3.1. BRIEF STATED FACTS ARE THAT WHILE GENERATING I NITIATION U/S.200A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S THE ACT) LEVIED PENALTY U/S.234-E OF THE ACT FOR LATE FILING OF TDS RETURN VIDE ORDER DATED 19 TH MAY-2014. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ACTION, ASSESSEE PRE FERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISS IONS CONFIRMED THE ITA NO.3401/AHD / 2015 RR ENTERPRISE VS. DCIT-CPC(TDS) ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 3 - PENALTY. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. AT THE OUTSET, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT LATE FILING FEES OF TDS RETURN U/S.234-E OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 CAN BE LEVIED ONLY AFTER 01/06/2015. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH (ITAT B BENCH AH MEDABAD) IN THE CASE OF SIDDHI VINAYAK DEVELOPERS VS. DCIT IN ITA N OS.2321 AND 2322/AHD/2015 FOR AYS 2013-14 & 2014-15, DATED 14/ 10/2015. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL (ITAT D B ENCH, AHMEDABAD) IN THE CASE(S) OF TANISH INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD. V. DCIT & IRFAN IQBALBHAI AJMERWALA VS. DCIT IN ITA NOS.2296 & 2297/AHD/2015 RESPECTIVELY FOR AY 2014-15, DATED 30/11/2015. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE LEVY OF LATE FILING FEE U/S.234-E OF THE I.T. ACT BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL VIDE ORDER DATED 01/09/2015. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE RESPECT IVE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE LATE FILING FEE OF TDS RETURN U/S.234-E CAN BE LEVIED PRIOR TO 01/06/2015. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY EXAMINED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SIDDHI VINAYAK DEVELOPERS VS. DCIT(SUPRA) AND HELD AS UNDER:- ITA NO.3401/AHD / 2015 RR ENTERPRISE VS. DCIT-CPC(TDS) ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 4 - 5. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ITAT, AMRISTAR BENCH HAS MADE ELABO RATE DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE. THE FINDING HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE CASE OF INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS. DCIT, GHAZIABAD RENDERED IN ITA NO.3271/AHD/201 4. IT READS AS UNDER: 5. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS NOW SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT AMRITSAR BE NCH IN THE CASE OF SIBIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT - ITA NO. 90/ASR/2015, VIDE ORDER DATED 9TH JUNE, 2015, WHEREIN THE DIVISION BE NCH HAS INTER ALIA OBSERVED AS UNDER :- 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. IN ADDITION TO HIS ARGUM ENT ON THE MERITS, LEARNED COUNSEL HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENT ION TO THE REPORTS ABOUT THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HONBLE HIGH COURTS, INCLUDING HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF NARATH MAPILA LP SCHOOL VS UNION OF INDIA [WP (C) 31498/20 13(J)], HONBLE KARANATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADITHY A BIZOR P SOLUTIONS VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 6918-6938/2014( T-IT), HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OM PRAK ASH DHOOT VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 1981 OF 2014] AND OF HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RASHMIKANT KUNDALI A VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 771 OF 2014], GRANTING STAY ON THE DEMANDS RAISED IN RESPECT OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234 E. THE FULL TEXT OF THESE DECISIONS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE US . HOWEVER, AS ADMITTEDLY THERE ARE NO ORDERS FROM THE HONBLE COU RTS ABOVE RETRAINING US FROM OUR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS IN RE SPECT OF THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL, AND AS, IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERS TANDING, THIS APPEAL REQUIRES ADJUDICATION ON A VERY SHORT LEGAL ISSUE, WITHIN A NARROW COMPASS OF MATERIAL FACTS, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. WE MAY PRODUCE, FOR READY REFERENCE, SECTION 23 4E OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2012 AND WAS ITA NO.3401/AHD / 2015 RR ENTERPRISE VS. DCIT-CPC(TDS) ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 5 - BROUGHT INTO EFFECT FROM 1ST JULY 2012. THIS STATU TORY PROVISION IS AS FOLLOWS: 234E. FEE FOR DEFAULTS IN FURNISHING STATEMENTS (1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WHERE A PERSON FAILS TO DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED A STATEMENT WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 2 00 OR THE PROVISO TO SUBSECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C, HE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY, BY WAY OF FEE, A SUM OF TWO HUNDRED RUPEES FOR EVERY DAY DURING WHICH THE FAILURE CONTINUES. (2) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTIBLE OR COLLECTIBLE, AS THE CASE MAY BE. (3) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) SHALL BE PAID BEFORE DELIVERING OR CAUSING TO BE DELIVERED A STAT EMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR T HE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C. (4) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO A STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR TH E PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C WHICH IS TO BE DELI VERED OR CAUSED TO BE DELIVERED FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE O R TAX COLLECTED AT SOURCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2012. 6. WE MAY ALSO REPRODUCE THE SECTION 200A WHICH WA S INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2009 WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 201 0. THIS STATUTORY PROVISION, AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIM E, WAS AS FOLLOWS: 200A: PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT S OURCE (1) WHERE A STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE, O R A CORRECTION STATEMENT, HAS BEEN MADE BY A PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM (HEREAFTER ITA NO.3401/AHD / 2015 RR ENTERPRISE VS. DCIT-CPC(TDS) ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 6 - REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION AS DEDUCTOR) UNDER SECT ION 200, SUCH STATEMENT SHALL BE PROCESSED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNE R, NAMELY: (A) THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE COMPUTED AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS, NAMELY: (I) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE STATEMENT; OR (II) AN INCORRECT CLAIM, APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMAT ION IN THE STATEMENT; (B) THE INTEREST, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STATEMENT; (C) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF AMOUNT COMP UTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 200 AND S ECTION 201, AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY WAY OF TAX OR INTEREST; (D) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED AN D SENT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABL E BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UNDER CLAUSE (C); AND (E) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PUR SUANCE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (C) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR: PROVIDED THAT NO INTIMATION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE SENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YE AR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED. EXPLANATION : FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, 'AN INCORRECT CLAIM APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMENT' SHA LL MEAN A CLAIM, ON THE BASIS OF AN ENTRY, IN THE STATEMENT (I) OF AN ITEM, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANOTHER ENTRY OF THE SAME OR SOME OTHER ITEM IN SUCH STATEMENT; ITA NO.3401/AHD / 2015 RR ENTERPRISE VS. DCIT-CPC(TDS) ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 7 - (II) IN RESPECT OF RATE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOUR CE, WHERE SUCH RATE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS UN DER SUB-SECTION (1), THE BOARD MAY MAKE A SCHEME FOR CENTRALISED PROCESS ING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO EXPEDITIOUSLY DETERMIN E THE TAX PAYABLE BY, OR THE REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR AS REQUIRED UNDE R THE SAID SUBSECTION. 7. BY WAY OF FINANCE ACT 2015, AND WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST JUNE 2015, THERE IS AN AMENDMENT IN SECTION 200A AND THIS AMEN DMENT, AS STATED IN THE FINANCE ACT 2015, IS AS FOLLOWS: IN SECTION 200A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, IN SUB-SECTI ON (1), FOR CLAUSES (C) TO (E), THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED WITH EFFECT FROM THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2015, NAMELY: (C) THE FEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E; (D) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF THE AMOUNT COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AND CLAUSE (C) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID U NDER SECTION 200 OR SECTION 201 OR SECTION 234E AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTH ERWISE BY WAY OF TAX OR INTEREST OR FEE; (E) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED AN D SENT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABL E BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UNDER CLAUSE (D); AND (F) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PUR SUANCE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (D) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR. 8. IN EFFECT THUS, POST 1ST JUNE 2015, IN THE COUR SE OF PROCESSING OF A TDS STATEMENT AND ISSUANCE OF INTIMATION UNDER SECT ION 200A IN RESPECT THEREOF, AN ADJUSTMENT COULD ALSO BE MADE IN RESPEC T OF THE FEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT WHAT IS IMPUGNED IN APPEAL BEFORE US IS THE ITA NO.3401/AHD / 2015 RR ENTERPRISE VS. DCIT-CPC(TDS) ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 8 - INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, AS STATED IN SO MANY WORDS IN THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION ITSELF, AND, AS THE LAW STO OD, PRIOR TO 1ST JUNE 2015, THERE WAS NO ENABLING PROVISION THEREIN FOR R AISING A DEMAND IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E. WHILE E XAMINING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A, W E HAVE TO BE GUIDED BY THE LIMITED MANDATE OF SECTION 200A, WHICH, AT T HE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, PERMITTED COMPUTATION OF AMOUNT RECOVERABLE F ROM, OR PAYABLE TO, THE TAX DEDUCTOR AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTM ENTS: (A). AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ARITHME TICAL ERRORS AND INCORRECT CLAIMS APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMENT - SECTION 200A(1)(A) (B). AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT FOR INTEREST, IF ANY, COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SUMS DEDUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STATEMENT. - SECTION 200A(1)(B) 9. NO OTHER ADJUSTMENTS IN THE AMOUNT REFUNDABLE T O, OR RECOVERABLE FROM, THE TAX DEDUCTOR, WERE PERMISSIBL E IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AS IT EXISTED AT THAT POINT OF TIME. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, IN OUR CONSI DERED VIEW, THE ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E WAS INDEED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS CONTEMP LATED UNDER SECTION 200A. THIS INTIMATION IS AN APPEALABLE ORDE R UNDER SECTION 246A(A), AND, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE E XAMINED LEGALITY OF THE ADJUSTMENT MADE UNDER THIS INTIMATION IN THE LI GHT OF THE SCOPE OF THE SECTION 200A. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT DONE SO. HE HA S JUSTIFIED THE LEVY OF FEES ON THE BASIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 34E. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER SUCH A LEVY COULD BE EFFECTED IN THE COURSE OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A. THE ANSWER IS CLEARLY IN NEGATIVE. NO OTHER PROVISION ENABLING A DEMAND IN R ESPECT OF THIS LEVY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO US AND IT IS THUS AN ADMITT ED POSITION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ENABLING PROVISION UNDER SECTION 200 A, NO SUCH LEVY COULD BE EFFECTED. AS INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A , RAISING A DEMAND OR DIRECTING A REFUND TO THE TAX DEDUCTOR, CAN ONLY BE PASSED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR WITHIN WHIC H THE RELATED TDS ITA NO.3401/AHD / 2015 RR ENTERPRISE VS. DCIT-CPC(TDS) ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 9 - STATEMENT IS FILED, AND AS THE RELATED TDS STATEMEN T WAS FILED ON 19TH FEBRUARY 2014, SUCH A LEVY COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN MAD E AT BEST WITHIN 31ST MARCH 2015. THAT TIME HAS ALREADY ELAPSED AND THE DEFECT IS THUS NOT CURABLE EVEN AT THIS STAGE. IN VIEW OF THESE DI SCUSSIONS, AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234 E IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. WE, THEREFOR E, UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE IMPUGNED L EVY OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELI EF ACCORDINGLY. 6. WHEN THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HE DID NOT HAV E MUCH TO SAY EXCEPT TO PLACE HIS RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. HE FAIRLY DID NOT DISPUTE THAT THE PROVISIONS ACCEPTING LEVY OF LATE FILING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E HAVE INDEED BEEN BROUGHT TO THE STATUTE W.E.F. 1ST JUNE, 2015 AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED MUCH B EFORE THAT DATE. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, I HEREBY DELETE THE LEVY OF LATE FILING F EES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT BY WAY OF IMPUGNED INTIMATION ISSUED. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015. 6. WE DO NOT FIND ANY DISPARITY ON THE FACTS, THERE FORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, WE ALLOW THE APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEE AND DELETE THE DEMAND RAISED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED. 5.1. SINCE THERE IS NO CHANGE INTO THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT CASE, THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE LA TE FILING FEE OF TDS RETURN U/S.234E OF THE ACT. THUS, GROUND NOS.1 TO 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. ITA NO.3401/AHD / 2015 RR ENTERPRISE VS. DCIT-CPC(TDS) ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 10 - 6. GROUND NO.4 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, WHICH REQUIRES NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON WEDNESDAY, THE 10 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( MANISH BORAD ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 10/ 02 /2016 4..., ,.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $' / THE APPELLANT 2. ()$' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 56 7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-8, AHMEDABAD 5. 8,9 (56 , . 560 , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 9;< =- / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, )8 ( //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. (DICTATION-PAD PAGES ATT ACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 3. OTHER MEMBER... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.10.2.16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 10.2.16 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER