O R D E R

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. This is the batch of four appeals preferred by the same assessee. Since all the appeals involved identical issues the same were taken up together and are being disposed off by way of common order. There is the delay of 35 days in each of the appeal. The Assessee has filed application seeking condonation of delay. After considering the same, the delay of 35 days in filling the present appeals is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to take up the appeals for adjudication on merits.

ITA No. 1235/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year – 2013-2014)

2. We would first take up ITA No. 1235/Mum/2026 preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Years 2013-2014.

3. By way of the present appeal the Assessee has challenged the order dated 27/10/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, Vadodara, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Intimation Order under Section 154 r.w.s 200A/206CB, dated 29/06/2024, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Years 2013-2014.

4. The solitary issue that arises for consideration is whether the Learned CIT(A) was justified in upholding the order of levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act by on processing of Statement of Tax Deducted at Source [‘TDS Statement’ in short] pertaining to period prior to 01/06/2015 (i.e., the date on which amendment to Section 200A of the Act came into effect)

5. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the Assessee was under obligation to deduct tax at source in respect of amounts paid/payable to various parties and file quarterly TDS Statement in respect of the same. Admittedly, the Assessee filed the TDS Statement/Revised Statement for the third quarter of the financial year 2012-13 relevant to Assessment Year 2013-14, belatedly. While processing the said TDS Statement/Revised Statement under Section 200A of the Act, late filing of fee of INR 40,000/- was levied under Section 234E of the Act. The Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) which was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 03 above.

6. We have perused the material on record and have considered the submissions advanced by the Learned Departmental Representative.

7. In the case of Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital Vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad [ITA No. 651 to 661 and 1018 to 1028 (Pun) of 2018, Pronounced on 25.10.2018] the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has decided identical issue in favour of the Assessee and had deleted the late fee levied under Section 234E of the Act in respect TDS Statement pertaining to period falling prior to 01/06/2015 holding as under:

“13. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India (supra) had also laid down similar proposition that the amendment to section 200A of the Act w.e.f. 01.06.2015 has prospective effect and is not applicable for the period of respective assessment years prior to 01.06.2015. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court are in paras 21 and 22, which read as under:-

“21. However, if Section 234E providing for fee was brought on the state book, keeping in view the aforesaid purpose and the intention then, the other mechanism provided for computation of fee and failure for payment of fee under Section 200A which has been brought about with effect from 1.6.2015 cannot be said as only by way of a regulatory mode or a regulatory mechanism but it can rather be termed as conferring substantive power upon the authority. It is true that, a regulatory mechanism by insertion of any provision made in the statute book, may have a retroactive character but, whether such provision provides for a mere regulatory mechanism or confers substantive power upon the authority would also be a aspect which may be required to be considered before such provisions is held