" \n \nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \nNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR \n \nBEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND \nSHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER \n \nITA no.57/Nag./2025 \n(Assessment Year : 2013–14) \n \nDr. Ambedkar Institute of Social Work \n6, NW Kailash Nagar, Post Bhagwan Nagar \nManewada Road, Nagpur 440 027 \nPAN – AADTP1266E \n \n……………. Appellant \n \nv/s \n \nIncome Tax Officer \nWard–1, Nagpur \n \n……………. Respondent \n \nAssessee by : Ms. Shraddha Bavdekar \n \n \nRevenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe \n \nDate of Hearing – 05/03/2025 \nDate of Order – 21/03/2025 \n \nO R D E R \n \nPER K.M. ROY, A.M. \n \n \n \nThe present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the \nimpugned order dated 13/12/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of \nIncome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned \nCIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2020–21. \n \n2. \nIn its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– \n \n“1. That considering the facts & circumstance of the case, The Ld. National \nFaceless Appeal Center has erred in levying of late fees and interest of Rs. \n16400/- & Rs.19,593/-respectively. \n \nThat the Ld. NFAC/CIT (A) have considered following judgements: \n \nd) Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi Vs Union of \nIndia 289CTR 0602 (Kar) wherein it is held that section 200A of the Income \nTax Act, 1961 is amended w.e.f. 01.06.2015 to provide for charging of late fee \n\n2 \n \nDr. Ambedkar Institute of Social Work \nITA no.57/Nag./2025 \n \n \nu/s 234E. Also, as per the well-established principles of interpretation of \nstatute, the provision shall have prospective effect unless it is expressly \nprovided or impliedly demonstrated. Thus, it was held that the charging of late \nfee u/s 234E in the intimation passed u/s 200A is illegal and invalid. (Thus, \nThe decision is in the favor of appellant) \n \ne) Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani 83 taxmann.com \n137 Wherein it was held that section 200A is a machinery provision and fee \nunder section 234E can be levied even without a regulatory provision being \nfound in section 200A for computation of fee. The Hon'ble High court held that \nthe machinery provision in section 200A cannot override a charging provision \nin section 234E. (The decision is in favor of Revenue) \n \nf) Hon'ble High court of Madras in the case of Conceria International (P.) Ltd. \nreported in [2023] 157 taxmann.com 335 (Madras)/[2024] 464 ITR 92 (Mad). \nWherein the above two contradictory decisions were considered and it was \nheld that section 234E is the substantive provision and late filing fee could be \nlevied without any further provisions in section 200A. (The decision is in favor \nof Revenue) \n \n2. There is a settled law that where there is a difference of opinion between \ndifferent High Courts on an issue, then the one in favour of the assessee \nneeds to be followed in the absence of any decision rendered by the \njurisdictional High Court as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs \nVegetable Products Limited (1973) 88 ITR 192. In view of this settled position \nof law, it is required to follow the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court \nin the case of Fateraj Singhvi (supra) which is in favour of the assessee. \nFurther, it is noticed that the Hon'ble ITAT, Nagpur (jurisdictional Tribunal) \nheld in the case of Padgilwar Agro Industries Vs ACIT, CPC TDS, Ghaziabad in \nITA No.225/Nag/2019 vide order dated 31.01.2020 that the AO is not \nempowered to charge fee u/s 234E of the Act while processing TDS \nstatements u/s 200A for the period prior to 01.06.2015. Hence, having regard \nto the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateraj \nSinghvi and the decision of the Hon'ble Nagpur Tribunal (Jurisdictional \nTribunal) in the case of Padgilwar Agro Industries, the levy of fee u/s 234E \nwhile processing the TDS statement u/s 200A of the Act for the period prior to \n01.06.2015 is not legally tenable. Thus, it is seen from the above facts of the \ncase that the Ld, NFAC/CIT (A) has ignored the decision of Hon'ble Supreme \nCourt in CIT Vs Vegetable Products Limited (1973) 88 ITR 192 wherein it was \nheld that where there is a difference of opinion between different High Courts \non an issue, then the one in favour of the assessee needs to be followed in the \nabsence of any decision rendered by the jurisdictional High Court. Thus in the \ninstant case, as the decision of the jurisdictional High Court is not available \nand further considering the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Nagpur (Jurisdictional \nTribunal), the appeal of the assesse shall be allowed and the error of charging \nlate fee u/s 234 E of the act by passing intimation u/s 200A of the Act should \nbe deleted. \n \nFurther, We reproduce our grounds of appeal as under: \n \n3. That the sec.200A of the Act does not permit processing of TDS statement \nfor default in payment of late fees, except any arithmetical error, or incorrect \nclaim, or default in payment of interest, any TDS payable or refundable etc \n\n3 \n \nDr. Ambedkar Institute of Social Work \nITA no.57/Nag./2025 \n \n \nbefore 01/06/2015. Hence late fees for TDS quarterly statement cannot be \nrecovered by way of processing under section sec 200A. Therefore, demand \nnotice cannot be issued under this section, but if issued, then it is illegal. \nHence liable to be cancelled. \n \n4. Section 200A has been amended w.e.f. 01/06/2015 to pass order u/s.200A \nfor the purpose of levying late fees U/S.234E for TDS statements which were \ndue to be filed on or after 1-6-2015 &for TDS deducted on or after 1-6-2015 & \nthus it is clear that orders levying late fee u/s 234E passed for TDS statement \nwhich were due to be filed before 1-6-2015 & for TDS deducted before \n01/06/2015 are wrong, unlawful and beyond jurisdiction hence liable to be \nquashed and late fee should be deleted in view of various High Court and \ntribunal judgments of coordinate benches also. \n \n5. That the TDS statement has been processed u/s 200A by TDS-CPC, \nwhereas as per sec 200A (2), CBDT has not and cannot authorize TDS-CPC to \nlevy late fee. Therefore, levy of late fee is beyond jurisdiction. \n \n6. That the interest has been charged on the amount of 234E, whereas late \nfee is not an amount of tax. Therefore, interest charged on late fee is unlawful \nand wrong hence liable to be cancelled. \n \n7. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the \ngrounds of appeal.” \n \n \n3. \nThe assessee is an Educational Institute which offers BSW and MSW \ncourses in the Nagpur city of Maharashtra State. The college is funded by the \nState Government of Maharashtra which receives its salary and non-salary \nthe said grant from State Government. The assessee is being run under Public \nWelfare Society which is a society registered under the Societies Registration \nAct, 1860. The assessee has been regularly complying with the provisions of \ndeduction of tax at source and depositing the same to the account of Central \nGovernment. On 28/08/2013, the assessee filed TDS return under section \n206 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the second quarter of \nfinancial year 2012-13 (Form 24Q). The due date for filing of return was \n15/10/2012. There was delay of 317 days in filing of return of income. The \noriginal TDS statement so filed by the assessee was processed under section \n200A of the Act on 13/11/2013 and thereafter the assessee revised TDS \n\n4 \n \nDr. Ambedkar Institute of Social Work \nITA no.57/Nag./2025 \n \n \nstatement to correct few irregularities and the revised TDS statement which \nwas processed on 10/04/2022, wherein demand was raised for late fees \nunder section 234E for ` 16,400, and interest thereon under section 220(2) of \n` 19,593. \n \n4. \nThe learned CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order so passed by the \nAssessing Officer. \n \n5. \nWe have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments made by \nthe rival parties and perused the material available on record. Both the \nparties agree before us that the issue for our adjudication is squarely covered \nby the decision of the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, \nrendered in Bank of India v/s ACIT, ITA no.93/Nag./2023, etc., for A.Y. \n2013–14, vide order dated 01/05/2024, wherein, the Tribunal, on identical \nset of facts and grounds decided the issue in favour of the assessee and \nagainst the Revenue by holding as follows:– \n \n“7. \nWe have heard the arguments of the rival parties, perused the material \navailable on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In \nthe present case, the Assessing Officer has levied late fee under section 234E \nof the Act for the assessment year 2013–14 and 2014–15. The amendment to \nthe provisions of section 200A of the Act came into effect from 1st June 2015. \nThe Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai, in S.S.S. \nConstruction (supra) has considered this issue by following the judgment of \nthe Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi v/s Union of India, \n[2016] 289 CTR 602 (Kar.) and also considered the judgment of the Hon’ble \nHigh Court in Olari Little Flower Kuries Pvt. Ltd. v/s Union of India, [2022] 134 \ntaxmann.com 111 (Ker.) holding that the intimation issued by the Assessing \nOfficer under section 200A of the Act to levy late fee for belated returned filed \nfor the period prior to 1st June 2015 is invalid. Relevant portion, vide Para–4 of \nthe order dated 22/04/2022 (supra), is extracted below:– \n \n“4. None appeared for the assessee. We have heard learned DR and \nperused orders of the authorities below. We find that the learned CIT(A) \nhas disposed off appeals filed by the assessee on technical grounds \nwithout condoning delay in filing appeals, although, the assessee has \n\n5 \n \nDr. Ambedkar Institute of Social Work \nITA no.57/Nag./2025 \n \n \nfiled petition for ITA No. 3495 to 3504/Chny/2019 condonation of delay. \nWe find that the issue involved in the present appeals filed by the \nassessee is on levy of late fee u/s.234E of the Act, for belated filing of \nquarterly TDS returns beyond prescribed date and this issue is covered \nby various decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts, including decision \nof the co-ordinate Bench of ITAT., Chennai. The Tribunal in the case of \nM/s. M.F. Textiles Pvt.Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos. 578 & 579/Chny/2021 \ndated 24.02.2022 had considered an identical issue in light of provisions \nof section 234E of the Act and also amendment to section 200A by \nFinance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and held that in absence of \nenabling provision u/s.200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot \nlevy late fee u/s.234E of the Act for belated filing of quarterly TDS \nreturn for period prior to 01.06.2015. The relevant findings of the \nTribunal in ITA Nos.578 & 579/Chny/2021 dated 24.02.2022 are \nreproduced as under:- \n \n\"5. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on \nrecord and gone through the orders of authorities below. The solitary \nissue that needs to be resolved in the given facts and circumstances of \nthe case is whether the Assessing Officer can levy late fee prescribed \nunder section 234E of the Act, when the quarterly return filed by the tax \ndeductor for the period prior to 01.06.2015, when the law has been \namended by Finance Act enabling the Assessing Officer to compute late \nfee while processing TDS returns under section 200A of the Act. \n \nITA No. 3495 to 3504/Chny/2019 The provisions of section 234E of the \nAct has been inserted to the statute by Finance Act with effect from \n01.07.2012 and provides levy of late fee for belated filing of quarterly \nreturn filed by the tax deductor. The Assessing Officer started levying of \nlate fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while \nprocessing quarterly TDS return and started issuing intimation to the \nassessees. The issue has been challenged before various Courts by the \nassessees by writ and challenged the validity of provision of section \n234E of the Act. In some cases, some Courts have granted stay of \noperation of intimation issued by the Department under section 200A of \nthe Act. Therefore, on the basis of judgement of the Hon'ble High Court, \nthe assessees have started challenging the intimation issued by the \nAssessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) did not entertain \nthe appeal filed by the assessee on both counts, including on limitation \nin filing the appeal as well as on merits of the issue and rejected the \narguments taken by the assessee and confirmed late fee levied under \nsection 234E of the Income Tax Act, as per mandate of the statute. In \nthe meantime, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj \nSinghvi v. Union of India [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka) had \nconsidered the issue and after analyzing the provisions of section 234E \nof the Act and section 200A of the Act and held that in the absence of \nenabling provision in section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer \ncannot levy late fee under section 234E of the Act, while processing the \nquarterly TDS return filed for the period of the respective assessment \nyears prior to 01.06.2015. A similar view has been expressed by the \nHon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) \nLtd. v. Union of India [2022] 134 taxmann.com 111 (Kerala) after \nconsidering the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of \nFatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka) and \nheld that the provisions of section 200A of the Act were mandated to \nenable computation of late fee payable under section 234E of the Act, at \nthe time of processing of quarterly TDS return and the said amendment \n\n6 \n \nDr. Ambedkar Institute of Social Work \nITA no.57/Nag./2025 \n \n \ncame into effect from 01.06.2015. Thus, the intimation issued by the \nAssessing Officer under section 200A of the Act to levy late fee for \nbelated return for the period prior to 01.06.2015 is invalid. Subsequent \nto the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble \nKerala High Court, series of decisions have been rendered by various \nBenches of the Tribunal and held that late ITA No. 3495 to \n3504/Chny/2019 fee under section 234E of the Act cannot be levied for \nthe period prior to 01.06.2015, because, there was no enabling \nprovision to levy such late fee. \n \n6. In the present appeals, on perusal of the facts, we find that the \nassessment years involved are prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, we are of \nthe considered view that the late fee charged by the Assessing Officer \nunder section 234E of the Act, while processing quarterly TDS return \nunder section 200A of the Act, is without any authority and invalid. \nHence, by respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka \nHigh Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 289 \nCTR 602 (Karnataka), we are of the considered view that the Assessing \nOfficer cannot levy late fee while processing of TDS return under section \n200A of the Act upto the financial year 2014-15. Since, late fee charged \nin the present case pertaining to the financial year 2013-14, we direct \nthe Assessing Officer to delete the late fee charged under section 234E \nof the Act in the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act for the \nprocessing of quarterly TDS return filed by the assessee. \n \n7. In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.\" \n \n8. \nWe find that the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in S.S.S. \nConstruction (supra) is squarely applies to the assessee’s case. Apart from \nthis, the issue is also decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, \nNagpur Bench, in assessee’s own case in Bank of India v/s ACIT, ITA \nno.104/Nag./2022, etc., order dated 06/06/2022, wherein the Tribunal, \nNagpur Bench, Nagpur, has decided the very same issue in favour of the \nassessee. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the impugned \norders passed by the learned CIT(A) for all the assessment years under \nconsideration deserve to be reversed. \n \n9. \nInsofar as the arguments of the learned D.R. in case of DIGP Group \nCentre CRPF (supra) is concerned, we find that it relates to the assessment \nyear 2016–17, 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–20, whereas, the present appeal \nrelates to the assessment year 2013–14 and 2014–15 and hence, the decision \nof the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, relied upon \nby the learned D.R. has no application to the facts of the present case for the \nassessment year under consideration and thus the arguments of the learned \nD.R. is rejected. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the learned \nCIT(A) for all the years under consideration are hereby reversed and the \ngrounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed. \n \n10. \nIn the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed.” \n \n \n12. \nSince the issue for our adjudication is squarely covered by the aforesaid \ndecision of the Tribunal rendered wherein the very same Bench decided \n\n7 \n \nDr. Ambedkar Institute of Social Work \nITA no.57/Nag./2025 \n \n \nidentical issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue for the \nreasons stated therein, consistent with the view taken therein, we set aside \nthe impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue by allowing \nthe ground of appeal raised by the assessee. \n \n6. \nIn the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed. \nOrder pronounced in the open Court on 21/03/2025 \n \n \nSd/- \nV. DURGA RAO \nJUDICIAL MEMBER \n \n \n \n \n \n Sd/- \nK.M. ROY \nACCOUNTANT MEMBER \nNAGPUR, DATED: 21/03/2025 \n \nCopy of the order forwarded to: \n \n(1) \nThe Assessee; \n(2) \nThe Revenue; \n(3) \nThe PCIT / CIT (Judicial); \n(4) \nThe DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and \n(5) \nGuard file. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n True Copy \n By Order \nPradeep J. Chowdhury \nSr. Private Secretary \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Sr. Private Secretary \n ITAT, Nagpur \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n"