NILKAMAL CONTROL SYSTEMS PVT.LTD,PUNE V. ITO, TDS WARD-2, PUNE

ITA 2485/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Nilkamal Control Systems Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the late fees charged under section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for delayed filing of TDS returns for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. The fees were levied by the Central Processing Cell (CPC) during the processing of TDS returns under section 200A. The assessee's appeals to the CIT(A) were unsuccessful, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal considered precedents and the specific amendments to section 200A, determining that the levy of fees prior to 01.06.2015 was not justified and that fees post this date could only be applied for delays occurring after 01.06.2015.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837464 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Central Ordnance Depot Vs. ITO (TDS), Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, M/s. Office of The District Prosecution Vs. ACIT, Shri Uttam Chand Gangwal Vs ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UDOL RAJ SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHARAD VAZE
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; TDS

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. No. ITA No(s). Name of the Applicant Name of Respondent Asst. Year Quar ter Form 1-6 ITA Nos.2474 to 2479/PUN/2025 Nilkamal Control Systems Pvt. Ltd., S.No.79 2 Dangat Industrial Estate, Behind Agarwal Godown, NDA Road, Shivane, Pune 411023 Maharashtra PAN : AADCN5934A ITO (TDS) Ward,-2, Pune 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 26Q 26Q 26Q 24Q 24Q 24Q 7-12 ITA Nos.2480 to 2485/PUN/2025 -do- -do- 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 Q2 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 24Q 24Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 13-20 ITA Nos.2486 to 2493/PUN/2025 -do- -do- 2015-16 2015-16 2015-16 2015-16 2015-16 2015-16 2015-16 2015-16 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 24Q 24Q 24Q 24Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 26Q आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: This batch of 20 appeals at the instance of assessee are directed against the different orders dated 14.08.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The only issue raised in these appeals is against the charging of late fee u/s.234E for the quarters arising in Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. Assessee by : Shri Sharad Vaze Revenue by : Shri Udol Raj Singh Date of hearing : 18.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 19.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com Nilkamal Control Systems Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.2474 to 2493/PUN/2025 2 2. Identical grounds have been raised by assessee in all these appeals. We therefore proceed to dispose of these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts common to these appeals are that TDS returns for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 corresponding to respective quarters captioned above were filed belatedly. The same were processed by Central Processing Cell (in short “CPC”) u/s.200A levying fee u/s.234E of the Act. The assessee filed rectification applications u/s.154 of the Act for removal of late fee u/s.234E but failed to succeed. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal(s) before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC but failed to get any relief. Now the assessee is in appeal(s) before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to various decisions including that of this Coordinate Bench in the case of Central Ordnance Depot Vs. ITO (TDS) – ITA Nos. 1439 to 1446/PUN/2025 order dated 26.09.2025 submitted that in the instant batch of appeals the sole grievance is against the levy of fee u/s.234E of the Act and stated that in light of the above decisions fee levied by the CPC in the processing u/s.200A of the Act prior to 01.06.2015 deserves to be deleted and for the orders passed subsequent from 01.06.2015 and onwards fee to be levied only for the default committed after 01.06.2015. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities and submitted that ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing of the appeals and that the assessee has not been able to satisfy ld.CIT(A) for the reasons giving rise to the said delay and therefore finding of ld.CIT(A) needs to be affirmed. Printed from counselvise.com Nilkamal Control Systems Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.2474 to 2493/PUN/2025 3 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The sole grievance of the assessee in the instant bunch of 20 appeals is against levy of fee u/s.234E of the Act levied by the CPC in the processing of TDS returns u/s.200A of the Act. Commonly in the appeals before ld.CIT(A) assessee failed to get relief as the delay in filing of the appeals has not been condoned. Our attention is drawn to the reasons giving rise to the delay and on perusal of the same, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeals before ld.CIT(A) within the prescribed time limit. Considering the issue involved and in the larger interest of justice and placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) we condone the delay before ld.CIT(A) in the instant bunch of appeals. 7. We find that in the instant batch of appeals TDS returns filed by the assessee for various quarters for A.Yrs. 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 have been processed by the CPC and fee u/s.234E of the Act has been levied for the delay in filing of the TDS returns. It has been pleaded that the CPC had no jurisdiction to levy fee u/s.234E of the Act in the processing of TDS returns u/s.200A of the Act upto the amendment which has come into effect from 01.06.2015 and therefore fee levied u/s.234E of the Act in the processing u/s.200A of the Act prior to 01.06.2015 deserves to be deleted. For those TDS returns which have been processed from 01.06.2015 and onwards fee u/s.234E is to be levied only for the default committed from 01.06.2015 and onwards. We find that similar issue came for adjudication before Printed from counselvise.com Nilkamal Control Systems Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.2474 to 2493/PUN/2025 4 this Tribunal in the case of Central Ordnance Depot Vs. ITO (TDS) (supra) order dated 26.09.2025 and the finding of Tribunal reads as under : “11. Now coming to merits of the issue, we observe that the TDS returns for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 have been filed on 15.05.2016 and the CPC processed the TDS returns u/s.200A of the Act on 31.05.2016. The chart indicating these details is reproduced below : 12. We note that amendment brought in Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 under Section 200A (clause (c)] of the Act is prospective in nature and the Revenue authorities are empowered to charge fee u/s.234E of the Act only after 01.06.2015 and not prior to that date by virtue of various judicial precedents. 13. In the instant appeals, we notice that the processing of the TDS returns by CPC have been carried out after 01.06.2015. Now in this given situation before us, it has been contended that the fee levied u/s.234E upto the date of amendment effective from 01.06.2015 deserved to be deleted and only the fee levied u/s.234E for the delay from 01.06.2016 onwards needs to be sustained in light of the settled judicial precedents. 14. Though the ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred and relied on various decisions, we find Coordinate Bench, Indore has dealt the very same issue in the case of M/s. Office of The District Prosecution Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.260 to 262/Ind/2019 for A.Yrs. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 order dated 06.03.2020 has held that even in cases where processing of the TDS returns u/s.200A of the Act is after 01.06.2015, in such cases also fee u/s.234E of the Act could not be levied upto 01.06.2015 and only for the remaining period of delay from 01.06.2015 onwards fees u/s.234E of the Act could be levied on the assessee. Relevant observation of the Tribunal reads as under : “7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Printed from counselvise.com Nilkamal Control Systems Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.2474 to 2493/PUN/2025 5 8. From perusal of the grounds we find that only one issue needs to be adjudicated as to whether the Revenue authorities were justified in levying the late fees u/s 234E of the Act while processing the statement of tax deducted at source u/s 200A of the Act after the amendment was brought in w.e.f. 01.06.2015 in the provisions of section 200A of the Act. The common fact in all these cases is that the date of filing TDS return as well as date of Centralized Processing Centre (In short \"CPC\") order is after 01.06.2015. We observe that recently Coordinate Bench of Jaipur in the case of Shri Uttam Chand Gangwal Vs ACIT in ITA No. 764/JP/2017 dated 23/01/2019 adjudicated the similar issue of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act in the case where TDS return and the CPC order was passed after 01.06.2015. Following decision was rendered by the Coordinate Bench: “In the instant case, the assessee filed its TDS return in Form No. 26Q for the quarter ended 31st March, 2015 on 22nd July, 2015 and the same was processed and an intimation dated 30 July, 2015 was issued by the AO u/s 200A of the Act. Thus, both the filing of the return of income by the assessee and processing thereof 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 the Act. Even though the quarterly return pertains to quarter ended 31.3.2015, the fact remains that there is a continuing default even after 1.6.2015 and the return was actually filed on 22.07.2015. The said provisions cannot be read to say that where an assessee file his return of income for the period falling after 1.6.2015 and there is a delay on his part to file the 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 AO has acquired the jurisdiction to levy the fees as on 1.06.2015 and therefore, any return filed and processed after 1.6.2015 will fall within his jurisdiction where on occurrence of any default on part of the assessee, he can levy fee so mandated u/s 234E of the Act. Therefore, irrespective of the period to ITA Nos. 260 to 262 & 285.286/Ind/2019 District Prosecution Officer 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 fees can be levied, only saving could be that for the period of delay falling prior to 1.06.2015, there could not be any levy of fees as the assumption of jurisdiction to levy such fees have been held by the Courts to be prospective in nature. However, where the delay continues beyond 1.06.2015. the AO is well within his jurisdiction to levy fees under section 234E 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 under section 234E is Printed from counselvise.com Nilkamal Control Systems Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.2474 to 2493/PUN/2025 6 upheld for the period 1.06.2015 to the date of actual filing of the TDS return which is 22.07.2015 and the balance fee so levied is hereby deleted. In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 9. From perusal of the above decision we find that the issue before us is similar to the issue adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench and therefore respectfully following the decision of Coordinate Bench rendered on 23.01.2019 in the case of Shri Uttam Chand Gangwal (supra) are of the considered view that though levy of fee u/s 234E have been validly levied by the CPC which was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) however the same should have been levied for the period commencing from 1.6.2015. We therefore direct the revenue authorities to make necessary verification in each of the case so as to look into the fact that in case if any fee u/s 234E is levied for the delay in filing return for the period before 01.06.2015, the same is directed to be deleted and the remaining fee levied for the default committed from 01.06.2015 onwards needs to be confirmed.” 15. From the discussion made herein above in light of decision of Coordinate Bench, Indore in the case of M/s. Office of The District Prosecution Vs. ACIT (supra), determining the period for which fees can be levied, only saving could be that for the period of delay falling prior to 1.06.2015 and the jurisdiction to levy fees u/s. 234E for the period starting 1.06.2015 to the date of actual filing of the TDS return which is 15.05.2016 in the instant case. In view thereof, we restore the issue raised in the instant appeals to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (TDS) for the limited purpose of making verification in each of the case and in case if any fee u/s.234E is levied for the delay in filing return for the period prior to 01.06.2015, the same is directed to be deleted and the remaining fee levied for the default committed from 01.06.2015 onwards needs to be sustained. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the instant batch of appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.” 8. Now examining the facts of the instant appeals in light of the above decision, the assessee has furnished a short summary depicting the detail of date of order u/s.200A of the Act and the same is reproduced below : Printed from counselvise.com Nilkamal Control Systems Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.2474 to 2493/PUN/2025 7 9. Applying the ratio laid down by this Tribunal in the case Central Ordnance Depot Vs. ITO (TDS) (supra) on the facts of the instant case, we not that fee u/s.234E of the Act levied in the returns processed prior to 01.06.2015 deserves to be deleted and for those TDS returns processed after 01.06.2015 the Revenue is directed to recalculate the fee u/s.234E of the Act for the default committed from 01.06.2015 onwards till the date of filing the TDS returns. Ordered accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com Nilkamal Control Systems Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.2474 to 2493/PUN/2025 8 10. In the result, ITA Nos.2474 to 2476/PUN/2025, ITA Nos.2483 to 2485/PUN/2025 and ITA No.2490/PUN/2025 are allowed and remaining appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated above. Order pronounced on this 19th day of February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 19th February, 2025. Satish आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “A” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "