SHREE GOVIND STEELS,PIMPRI PUNE V. CIRCLE 8, AKURDI PUNE

ITA 901/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shree Govind Steels, a partnership firm, appealing against a fee levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for delay in filing TDS returns for the first quarter of the financial year 2014-15. The fee was imposed by the Centralized Processing Center (CPC) on March 30, 2015. The tribunal examined whether the CPC had the jurisdiction to levy this fee prior to the amendment of section 200A on June 1, 2015, which explicitly allowed such fees. The tribunal referenced multiple precedents where it was held that the amendment is prospective, thus fees under section 234E could only be imposed for defaults occurring after this date.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826632 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Utkarsh Balaso Patil Vs. ITO (TDS Ward, Kolhapur), Olari Little Flower Kuries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, Jiji Varghese VS. ITO(TDS) & Ors., Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe Vs. ITO (TDS), Pune, Ram Refrigeration and Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar, Vidya Sunil Mane Vs. ITO (TDS), Kolhapur
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY DHIVARE
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.901/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Govind Steels, B4-301, Karmayog Hsg Complex, Pimpri, Pune 411 018 Maharashtra PAN : AAYFS1539C Vs. ACIT, Circle-8, Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BOARD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 27.01.2025 framed by Addl/JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru arising out of Intimation Order dated 30.03.2025 passed u/s.200A/206CB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Even on the previous date on hearing, i.e. 28.07.2025, 25.09.2025 and 14.10.2025 the case is being adjourned either due to non representation/seeking time. Further, on perusal of the grounds of appeal, we notice that the issue relates to levy of fee u/s.234E of the Act prior to amendment brought in u/s.200A of the Act w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and the issue has been dealt by this Tribunal in plethora of decisions. We therefore Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Dhivare Date of hearing : 22.12.2025 Date of pronouncement : 06.01.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.901/PUN/2025 Shree Govind Steels 2 proceed to dispose of the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and material available on record. 3. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is a partnership firm and TDS return for Quarter-1 for F.Y. 2014-15 has been processed by CPC on 30.03.2015 and fee u/s.234E of the Act at Rs.17,400/- has been levied. We observe that similar issue has been dealt by this Tribunal in the case of Utkarsh Balaso Patil Vs.ITO (TDS Ward, Kolhapur) in ITA Nos. 1676 to 1683/PUN/2025 & others order dated 10.09.2025 where it has been held that prior to amendment brought in section 200A of the Act w.e.f. 01.06.2015, there was no jurisdiction with the CPC for levy of fee u/s.234E of the Act in the return processed u/s.200A of the Act. Finding of Tribunal reads as follows : “7. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the records placed before us. The solitary issue in this batch of appeals is against the levy of fee u/s.234E of the Act by CPC for delay in filing the TDS quarterly returns and Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC confirming such levy of fee u/s.234E for filing the Quarterly returns after the due date. 8. We observe that the issue of levy of fee u/s.234E prior to 01.06.2015 is no more res integra by virtue of several decisions rendered by this Tribunal on this very issue. Details of date of filing of quarterly return and the original processing dates for the quarters referred in the instant bunch of appeals are reproduced below : 8.1 The above details show that the late fee u/s.234E has been imposed for the delay in furnishing the statements for quarters, in Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.901/PUN/2025 Shree Govind Steels 3 the returns processed u/s.200A of the Act prior to 01.06.2015. As regards the fate of fees levied u/s.234E of the Act for the returns filed and processed before 01.06.2015, we find the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal after considering the judicial pronouncements have been taking a consistent view that the amendment brought in Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 under Section 200A (clause (c)] of the Act is prospective in nature thereby empowering the Revenue authorities to charge fee u/s.234E of the Act only after 01.06.2015. In that view of the matter, Revenue authorities are empowered to impose such late fee u/s.234E only for the default committed after 01.06.2015 and not prior to that. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Olari Little Flower Kuries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others (2022) 440 ITR 26 (Kerala) has affirmed the non-imposition of fee for the period prior to 01.06.2015. Similar view has been taken in Jiji Varghese VS. ITO(TDS) & Ors. (2022) 443 ITR 267 (Ker) holding that no fee u/s.234E can be imposed for the periods of the respective A.Ys. prior to 1st June, 2015. Similar view was also taken by this Tribunal in the case of Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe Vs. ITO (TDS), Pune in ITA Nos.1286 to 1309/PUN/2023, dated 29.02.2024, Ram Refrigeration and Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar in ITA Nos. 884 to 887/PUN/2025 dated 23.05.2025 and Vidya Sunil Mane Vs. ITO (TDS), Kolhapur in ITA Nos. 128 to 131/PUN/2024 dated 28.03.2024. Thus, we find that the issue raised in the instant appeals is covered in favour of the assessee by the above referred decisions as the returns u/s.200A(c) were processed before 01.06.2015. 9. Respectfully following the judicial precedents, we reverse the impugned orders passed by ld.CIT(A)/NFAC on this sole issue and allow the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all these fourteen appeals and direct the Revenue authorities to delete the impugned late fee levied u/s.234E of the Act.” 4. Respectfully following the above decision and similarity of issue and facts of the instant appeal, the impugned fee levied u/s.234E of the Act is deleted. Effective Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 06th day of January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 06th January, 2026. Satish Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.901/PUN/2025 Shree Govind Steels 4 आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "