आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” (cid:7008)यायपीठ पणु े म(cid:7286) ।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court)

BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील स.ं / ITA Nos.1818 & 1819/PUN/2018 िनधार(cid:6981) ण वष(cid:6981) / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Webtrust Co. In (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Arihant Complex, Machali Khadak, Aurangabad- 431001.

PAN : AAACW4655N .......अपीलाथ(cid:7278) Appellant /

बनाम / V/s.

ACIT, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad. ……(cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278) / Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई क(cid:7409) तारीख / Date of Hearing : 02.11.2021 घोषणा क(cid:7409) तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 02.11.2021 आदशे / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

These are the appeals filed by the assessee directed against the different orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad (‘CIT(A)’ for short) commonly dated 27.08.2018 for the assessment years

2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively.

2. Since the identical facts and issues are involved in both the appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.

3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal in ITA No.1818/PUN/2018 are stated herein.

4. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under :-

The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. During the financial year 2012-13, the appellant company had submitted statements of tax deducted at source belatedly. The CPC (TDS) had issued an intimation dated 02.10.2016 levying late fees u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for belated submission of TDS statements of Rs.53,800/-, Rs.9,000/-, Rs.35,400/- and Rs.11,400/-.

5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia and Others vs. Union of India, 373 ITR 268.

6. Being aggrieved by the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

7. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee.

8. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia and Others (supra) and prayed for upholding the levy of penalty u/s 234E of the Act.

9. We heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the material on record. The only issue in the present appeal relates to the levy of late fees u/s 234E of the Act. The CPC (TDS) had levied penalty u/s 234E of the Act for belated submission of tax deducted at source statement during the financial year 2012-13. It is only w.e.f. 01.06.2015 an amendment was made u/s 200A of the Act providing that fee u/s 234E could be computed at the time of processing of the return of income and intimation could be issued specifying the same payable by the dedutor as fee u/s 234E of the Act. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India, 73 taxmann.com 252 held that the provisions of section 234E of the Act are substantive in nature and the mechanism for computing the late fee was provided by the Parliament only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Therefore, late fees u/s 234E of the Act can be levied only prospectively w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra) are extracted hereunder :-

“19. Hence, it can be said that, the mechanism provided for enforceability of Section 200(3) or 206C (3) for filing of the statement by making it penal under Section 272A (2) (k) is done away in view of the insertion of Section 271H providing for penal provision for such failure to submit return. When the Parliament has simultaneously brought about Section 234E, Section 271H and the aforesaid proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that, the fee provided under Section 234E is contemplated to give a privilege to the defaulter to come out f