AI Insights
The case involves multiple appeals filed by Aman Infraproperties Pvt. Ltd. against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the levy of late fees under section 234E and interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act for various assessment years. The primary contention was that the late fees could not be charged for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendments were prospective. The Tribunal found that the issues were covered by previous decisions in favor of the assessee and directed the deletion of the late fees and interest for most appeals. For one appeal, the Tribunal directed a re-evaluation on merits.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123059 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
3 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
29-05-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
23-05-2023
Assessment Year
misc
Appeal Filed On
14-02-2023
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SR4IVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.60,61,62,63,64, & 65/LKW/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Aman Infraproperties Pvt. Ltd. 3 rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Complex Jopling Road, Lucknow v. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Ghaziabad TAN/PAN:AAKCA9796F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 24 05 2023 Date of pronouncement: 30 05 2023 O R D E R PER BENCH: (A) Appeal in I.T.A. No.60/LKO/2023 has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 against the impugned appellate order dated 22.12.2022 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048180127(1) of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“ld. CIT(A)” for short]. Appeal in I.T.A. No.61/LKO/2023 has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the impugned appellate order dated 17.1.2023 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1048851666(1) of ld. CIT(A). Appeal in I.T.A. No.62/LKO/2023 has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the impugned appellate order dated Page 2 of 12 22.12.2022 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1048171118(1) of ld. CIT(A). Appeal in I.T.A. No.63/LKO/2023 has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the impugned appellate order dated 27.12.2022 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1048277756(1) of ld. CIT(A). Appeal in I.T.A. No.64/LKO/2023 has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the impugned appellate order dated 22.12.2022 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1048171118(1) of ld. CIT(A). Appeal in I.T.A. No.61/LKO/2023 has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the impugned appellate order dated 17.1.2023 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/10488170438(1) of ld. CIT(A). Appeal in I.T.A. No.65/LKO/2023 has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the impugned appellate order dated 22.12.2022 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1048169916(1) of ld. CIT(A). The grounds of appeal are as under: I.T.A. No.60/LKO/2023: 1. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming levy of late fees of Rs. 4,200/- u/s 234E of IT act and interest thereon u/s 220(2) of IT act Rs. 4,529/- in order passed u/s 154 read with 200A of IT Act pertaining to FY 2013-14 ( 4th quarter in Form 26Q) without appreciating that the late fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not considering that the mechanism provided for computation of Fees and failure for payment of Fee u/s 200A of IT Act was Page 3 of 12 brought on statue w.e.f 01.06.2015 and thus the said amendment is prospective in nature. 3. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC erred in relying on the judgments pertaining to constitutional validity of section 234E without appreciating that the issue of constitutional validity was never challenged before him and the issue involved in the appeal was w.r.t date of applicability of section 234E of IT Act. 4. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in passing the order, contrary to facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon the Ld. CIT(Appeals). I.T.A. No.61/LKO/2023: 1. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming levy of late fees of Rs. 19600 u/s 234E of IT act and interest thereon u/s 220(2) of IT act Rs. 10976/- in order passed u/s 154 read with 200A of IT Act pertaining to FY 2014-15 (2nd quarter in Form 26Q) without appreciating that the late fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not considering that the mechanism provided for computation of Fees and failure for payment of Fee u/s 200A of IT Act was brought on statue w.e.f 01.06.2015 and thus the said amendment is prospective in nature. 3. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC erred in relying on the judgments pertaining to constitutional validity of section 234E without appreciating that the issue of constitutional validity was never challenged before him and the issue involved in the appeal was w.r.t date of applicability of section 234E of IT Act. 4. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in passing the order, contrary to facts, law and principle of natural justice and Page 4 of 12 without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon the Ld. CIT(Appeals). I.T.A. No.62/LKO/2023: 1. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming levy of late fees of Rs. 21800 u/s 234E of IT act and interest thereon u/s 220(2) of IT act Rs. 16568/- in order passed u/s 154 read with 200A of IT Act pertaining to FY 2014-15 (3rd. quarter in Form 26Q) without appreciating that the late fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not considering that the mechanism provided for computation of Fees and failure for payment of Fee u/s 200A of IT Act was brought on statue w.e.f 01.06.2015 and thus the said amendment is prospective in nature. 3. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC erred in relying on the judgments pertaining to constitutional validity of section 234E without appreciating that the issue of constitutional validity was never challenged before him and the issue involved in the appeal was w.r.t date of applicability of section 234E of IT Act. 4. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in passing the order, contrary to facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon the Ld. CIT(Appeals). I.T.A. No.63/LKO/2023: 1. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC erred in stating that two appeals have been filed against order u/s 154/200A dated 13-9-21 for Qtr 3 in Form 24Q and thereby dismissed the appeal filed on 13- 10-21 against order u/s 154/200A dated 13-9-21 for Qtr 3 in Form 24Q as infructuous without considering that there were two separate appeals -one Page 5 of 12 against form No. 26Q Qtr3 and other against form No. 24Q Qtr 3. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC erred in not considering that though the Late Fee charged u/s 234E was same for both the appeals but both the appeals were against separate orders and against separate Forms i.e. 24Q and 26Q. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE 3. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming levy of late fees of Rs. 21800 u/s 234E of IT act and interest thereon u/s 220(2) of IT act Rs. 16568/- in order passed u/s 154 read with 200A of IT Act pertaining to FY 2014-15 (3rd. quarter in Form 24Q) without appreciating that the late fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 4. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not considering that the mechanism provided for computation of Fees and failure for payment of Fee u/s 200A of IT Act was brought on statue w.e.f 01.06.2015 and thus the said amendment is prospective in nature. 5. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC erred in relying on the judgments pertaining to constitutional validity of section 234E without appreciating that the issue of constitutional validity was never challenged before him and the issue involved in the appeal was w.r.t date of applicability of section 234E of IT Act. 6. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in passing the order, contrary to facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon the Ld. CIT(Appeals). I.T.A. No.64/LKO/2023: Page 6 of 12 1. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming levy of late fees of Rs. 22600 u/s 234E of IT act and interest thereon u/s 220(2) of IT act Rs. 16272/- in order passed u/s 154 read with 200A of IT Act pertaining to FY 2014-15 ( 4th quarter in Form 260) without appreciating that the late fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not considering that the mechanism provided for computation of Fees and failure for payment of Fee u/s 200A of IT Act was brought on statue w.e.f 01.06.2015 and thus the said amendment is prospective in nature. 3. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC erred in relying on the judgments pertaining to constitutional validity of section 234E without appreciating that the issue of constitutional validity was never challenged before him and the issue involved in the appeal was w.r.t date of applicability of section 234E of IT Act. 4. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in passing the order, contrary to facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon the Ld. CIT(Appeals). I.T.A. No.65/LKO/2023: 1. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming levy of late fees of Rs. 22400 u/s 234E of IT act and interest thereon u/s 220(2) of IT act Rs. 16128/- in order passed u/s 154 read with 200A of IT Act pertaining to FY 2014-15 ( 4th quarter in Form 24Q) without appreciating that the late fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. Page 7 of 12 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not considering that the mechanism provided for computation of Fees and failure for payment of Fee u/s 200A of IT Act was brought on statue w.e.f 01.06.2015 and thus the said amendment is prospective in nature. 3. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC erred in relying on the judgments pertaining to constitutional validity of section 234E without appreciating that the issue of constitutional validity was never challenged before him and the issue involved in the appeal was w.r.t date of applicability of section 234E of IT Act. 4. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in passing the order, contrary to facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon the Ld. CIT(Appeals). (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. I.T.A. Nos.60, 61, 62, 64 & 65/LKO/2023: (B) Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A., the ld. Authorised Representative (“ld. A.R.” for short) for the assessee submitted, at the outset, at the time of hearing before us, that the issues in dispute in aforesaid appeals vide I.T.A. Nos.60, 61, 62, 64 & 65/LKO/2023, are squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the following orders: (i) Order dated 26.7.2022 in the case of Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT for Assessment Year 2014-15 in I.T. Act Nos. 121 to 125/LKW/2022. Page 8 of 12 (ii) Order dated 30.11.2022 in the case of Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS)-II for Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2015-16 in I.T. Act Nos. 103 to 107/LKW/2021. (iii) Order dated 10.10.2018 in the case of Dr. Saumya Singh vs. ACIT for Assessment Year 2015-16 in I.T. Act Nos.793, 794 & 795/LKW/2017. (iv) Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka). (v) United Metals vs. Income-tax Officer (TDS) [2022] 137 taxmann.com 115 (Kerala). (vi) Additional DIGP vs. Dy. CIT (TDS), [2020] 120 taxmann.com 284 (Delhi – Trib.). (B.1) The learned Senior Departmental Representative for the Revenue [“ld. Sr. D.R.” for short] did not dispute the submissions made by the ld. A.R. for the assessee, that the issues in dispute in these appeals are squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders in the cases of Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra), Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS)-II (supra), Dr. Saumya Singh vs. ACIT (supra), Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India (supra), United Metals vs. Income-tax Officer (TDS) (supra) and Additional DIGP vs. Dy. CIT (TDS) (supra). However, the ld. Sr. D.R. for the Revenue relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). (B.2) We have heard both the sides and we have perused the materials on record. There is no dispute that the issues involved in these appeals are squarely covered in favour of the assessee by Page 9 of 12 the aforesaid orders in the cases of Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra), Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS)-II (supra), Dr. Saumya Singh vs. ACIT (supra), Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India (supra), United Metals vs. Income-tax Officer (TDS) (supra) and Additional DIGP vs. Dy. CIT (TDS) (supra). Further, neither side has brought any distinguishing facts and circumstances to our attention, or relevant material, to persuade us to take a different view from the view taken in aforesaid orders in the cases of Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra), Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS)-II (supra), Dr. Saumya Singh vs. ACIT (supra), Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India (supra), United Metals vs. Income-tax Officer (TDS) (supra) and Additional DIGP vs. Dy. CIT (TDS) (supra), on which the ld. A.R. for the assessee has placed reliance. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we decide the issues involved in the present appeals before us in favour of the assessee. (B.2.1) Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the late fees levied under section 234E of the I.T. Act and interest thereon charged under section 220(2) of the I.T. Act. For statistical purposes, these five appeals are treated as allowed. I.T.A. No.63/LKW/2023: (C) In the appeal vide I.T.A. No.63/LKO/2023, the ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted again that the issues in dispute are squarely covered, on merits, by the aforesaid orders in the cases Page 10 of 12 of Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra), Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS)-II (supra), Dr. Saumya Singh vs. ACIT (supra), Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India (supra), United Metals vs. Income-tax Officer (TDS) (supra) and Additional DIGP vs. Dy. CIT (TDS) (supra). However, he drew our attention to the following facts contained in the synopsis filed during the appellate proceedings (titled as “Brief Facts of the Case”): “With due respect, it is prayed that Ld. C.I.T. (A), NFAC treated the present appeal in Form 2403 as infructuous by stating that the appellant has filed two appeals for the same quarter i.e. Qtr.-3 and for the same financial year i.e. F.Y- 2014-15. It is prayed that Ld. C.I.T. (A) did not consider that the Appellant had filed two separate appeals for the Quarter-3 for F. Y-2014-15 which were pertaining to two separate forms viz Form 2403 and Form 2603. The Form 2403 appeal pertains to TDS Returns filed for Salary deduction and Form 260 3 appeal pertains to TDS Returns filed for other than Salary deduction. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) decided the appeal filed for Form No. 2603 vide order dated 22.12.2022 and treated the appeal filed against processing of Form No. 2403 as infructuous by holding that the appeal filed in Form No. 24Q3 on 13.10.2021 against order u/s 200A/154 of I. T. Act dated 13.09.2021 is a duplicate appeal which has been filed twice. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) did not considered that there are separate orders u/s 200A/154 of I. T. Act passed by ACIT-TDS, CPC, for Form No. 2403 and for Form No. 26Q3 and thus, the assessee has rightly filed separate appeals for two Forms i.e. 2403 and Form No. 2603 for F. Y. -2014-15 and thus there is no duplicate appeals. Page 11 of 12 The Ld. C.I.T. (A) did not considered that the appeal filed by the Assessee for Form 24Q3 are emanating from different Orders passed by ACIT-TDS, CPC and merely because the quarter for both the forms were same, the Ld. CIT (A) wrongly conceived that they are duplicate appeals and treated the appeal filed against Form 2403 for F. Y. 2014-15 as infructuous. It is therefore prayed that the appeal in Form No.24Q3 filed against the order of ACIT- TDS, CPC dated 13.9.2021 cannot be treated as infructuous.” (C.1) In view of the foregoing, the ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee’s appeal was infructuous, is wrong. On merits, the ld. A.R. for the assessee relied on the aforesaid orders in the cases of Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra), Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS)-II (supra), Dr. Saumya Singh vs. ACIT (supra), Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India (supra), United Metals vs. Income-tax Officer (TDS) (supra) and Additional DIGP vs. Dy. CIT (TDS) (supra). (C.2) The ld. Sr. D.R. for the Revenue relied on the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. (C.2.1) We have heard both the sides and we have perused the materials on records. In view of the submissions made from the assessee’s side, we agree with the contention of the ld. A.R. for the assessee that the assessee’s appeal in the office of the ld. CIT(A) was not infructuous, but had to be decided on merits. Page 12 of 12 Therefore, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 27.12.2022 of the ld. CIT(A) and we direct the ld. CIT(A) to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, on merits, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We further direct the ld. CIT(A) to give due consideration to our order in the aforesaid appeals in I.T.A. Nos.60, 61, 62, 64 & 65/LKO/2023 in the foregoing part of this consolidated order. For statistical purposes, I.T.A. No.63/LKW/2023 is treated as partly allowed. (D) In the result, appeals in I.T.A. Nos.60, 61, 62, 64 & 65/LKO/2023 are allowed and appeal in I.T.A. No.63/LKW/2023 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/05/2023. Sd/- Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:30/05/2023 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order Assistant Registrar
Other Referred Cases
Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS)-II, Dr. Saumya Singh vs. ACIT, Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India, United Metals vs. Income-tax Officer (TDS), Additional DIGP vs. Dy. CIT (TDS)
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act
Guide to Charitable Trusts: Formation, Benefits, and Compliance
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
CRM Implementation Plan
₹0
Sales Forecasting Sheet
₹100
Budget 2026: 5 Major Personal Tax Changes Every Taxpayer Must Know
Team Counselvise - February 05, 2026
Transfer Pricing and International Tax Reforms under Finance Bill, 2026: A Practical Overview
Team Counselvise - February 07, 2026
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026