The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi bench has held that when there are two conflicting decisions on a similar issue, the authorities shall follow the one in favour of the Assessee.
The bench comprising Mr. Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member was considering an appeal filed by M/s ICMC Projects Pvt. Ltd wherein the assessee challenged a notice issued by the income tax department for payment of late fee u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for delay in filing of quarterly TDS statement for fourth quarter for the financial years 2013-14 & for all the quarters of F.Y. 2014-15 and in all the cases for the quarter ending prior to 01.06 .2015.
The First Appellate Authorities have held that the fee was leviable u/s 200A for filing of returns.
There were two conflicting judgments from the Karnataka High Court and the Gujarat High Courts. In case of Fatehra j Singhvi & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. The Karnataka High Court ruled in favour of the assessee holding that the amendments brought in statute w.e .f. 01.06 .2015 are prospective in nature and as such, notices issued u/s 200A of the Act for computation and intimation of payment of late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act relating to the period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015 was not maintainable.
While concluding the appeal, the Tribunal bench held that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable products Limited 88 ITR 192 (SC) pronouncing that, when there are conflicting decisions the view taken in favour of the assessee should be followed is relevant toadjudication of the matter before us.
“Hence, the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Authorities confirming the late fee levied by the AO u/s 200A read with section 234E in all the cases wherein the defaults were prior to 01 .06.2015 is not sustainable in the eyes of law,” the Tribunal said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
