UTKARSH BALASO PATIL,KOLHAPUR V. ITO (TDS) WARD, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1688/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a series of appeals by Utkarsh Balaso Patil against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which upheld the levy of late fees under section 234E of the Income-tax Act for delayed filing of TDS returns for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The primary legal contention was whether the late fees could be imposed for periods prior to the enforcement of the enabling provision under section 200A, which came into effect on 01.06.2015. The Tribunal, referencing several precedents, concluded that the late fees under section 234E could only be imposed for defaults occurring after this date, thus ruling in favor of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774062 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: 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: UMESH PHADE
• 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 Sl. No. ITA No(s). Name of the Applicant Name of Respondent Asst. Year Quar ter Form 1-8 ITA Nos.1676 to to 1683/PUN/2025 Utkarsh Balaso Patil, Flat No.1, Neelanjali Coop. Hsg. Society, Plot No.21, Kalyani Nagar, Pune 411 006 Maharashtra PAN : ALDPP8717D ITO (TDS Ward), Kolhapur 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 26Q 26Q 24Q 26Q 24Q 24Q 26Q 24Q 9-14 ITA Nos.1684 to to 1689/PUN/2025 Utkarsh Balaso Patil, Flat No.1, Neelanjali Coop. Hsg. Society, Plot No.21, Kalyani Nagar, Pune 411 006 Maharashtra PAN : ALDPP8717D ITO (TDS Ward), Kolhapur 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 24Q 24Q 24Q 26Q 26Q 26Q आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: This batch of 14 appeals at the instance of assessee are directed against the different orders dated 10.06.2025 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 the charging of interest u/s.234E for the quarters relating to Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. When the appeals were called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee eventhough valid notices were served. However, written submissions have been filed before this Tribunal on 01.09.2025. Considering the fact that the common issue raised in Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Umesh Phade Date of hearing : 04.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 10.09.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1676 to 1689/PUN/2025 Utkarsh Balaso Patil 2 this batch of appeals has already been decided by this Tribunal in plethora of decisions, we proceed to adjudicate this batch of appeals with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and available records. 3. 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. 4. We take ITA No.1676/PUN/2025 as the Lead case for A.Y. 2014-15. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal and upholding the levy of late fees under section 234E of the Act in respect of TDS statements filed for the 1\" quarter of FY 2013-14 when such provision was not in existence or was not in force at the relevant time. The Appellate Order therefore so passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in confirming the levy of late fees under section 234E being arbitrary, illegal and bad-in-law be quashed/set-aside. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the decisions of various jurisdictional tribunal referred by the assessee and Ld. CIT(A) also out to have considered the decision favourable to assessee in case of conflicting decisions. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the enabling provision under section 200A for levy of fees under section 234E came into effect prospectively w.e.f. 01.06.2015, and hence, no fee under section 234E could have been levied for a delay occurring prior to such date while processing TDS statements. The Appellate Order therefore so passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in confirming the levy of late fees under section 234E being arbitrary, illegal and bad-in-law be quashed/set-aside. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 220(2) of the Act without proper justification or basis and without determining whether there was any default in payment of demand as per law. 5. That the orders passed by the lower authorities are bad in law, void ab-initio, and without jurisdiction to the extent they impose fees and interest which are not sustainable under the provisions of the Act as applicable to the relevant period. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1676 to 1689/PUN/2025 Utkarsh Balaso Patil 3 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 5. Brief facts common to these appeals are that TDS returns for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 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 this Tribunal. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders passed by the lower authorities and vehemently argued for confirming the late fee levied u/s.234E of the Act. 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 : Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1676 to 1689/PUN/2025 Utkarsh Balaso Patil 4 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 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1676 to 1689/PUN/2025 Utkarsh Balaso Patil 5 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. 10. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on this 10th day of September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 10th September, 2025. Satish Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1676 to 1689/PUN/2025 Utkarsh Balaso Patil 6 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 // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "