Section 234E Fee Not Applicable for FY 2012-13 to 2014-15: ITAT Cites Karnataka HC Order:

Section 234E Fee Not Applicable for FY 2012-13 to 2014-15: ITAT Cites Karnataka HC Order

The Tribunal noted that the case is related to FY 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, which is already covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the High Court of Karnataka in Fateh Raj Singhvi v. Union of India 73 taxmann.com 252.

ITAT Deletes Penalty Under Section 234E for FY 2012-13 to 2014-15

authorNidhidateNov 8, 2025
Last update on Nov 8, 2025
Section 234E Fee Not Applicable for FY 2012-13 to 2014-15: ITAT Cites Karnataka HC Order The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore, has recently deleted the late fee under section 243E of the Income Tax Act for FY 2012-13 to 2014-15, as held in an order of the Karnataka High Court.
ITAT Directs CIT(A) to Allow One More Opportunity for Hearing, Subject to Cost Payment
The assessee, Mr Sandeep Kanunga, filed the TDS quarterly statement (Form 26Q) for the financial year 2012-13 on 15.10.2013. The Centralised Processing Centre, Ghaziabad, processed the returns and levied fees under Section 234E for late filing. The fee demand was as follows:
  • FY 2012-13 (Q4): Rs. 30,600
  • FY 2013-14 (Q1): Rs. 43,198
  • FY 2014-15 (Q3): Rs. 23,200
To challenge these fees, the assessee filed a delayed appeal to CIT(A). The assessee said that the appeal was delayed due to many reasons, including the late awareness of the Karnataka High Court judgement that passed an order for waiving the late fees under section 234E and changes in the accountant and tax consultants handling the case. However, CIT(A) refused to condone the delay, saying that there was not enough cause stated in the reasons for the delay. The assessee then approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore.
ITAT Upholds Disallowance of Subcontract Expenses, Remands TDS Matter to AO
The Tribunal noted that the case is related to FY 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, which is already covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the High Court of Karnataka in Fateh Raj Singhvi v. Union of India 73 taxmann.com 252. The court, based on this judgement, said that there is no provision to impose a fee under section 234E of the Act for the said period. Therefore, the additions made for the Financial Years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 towards the levy of fee under section 234E of the Act were deleted.

About Author

Nidhi

Content Writer

Nidhi is a skilled content writer specializing in personal finance. She creates clear, engaging articles on mutual funds, investments, insurance, and wealth-building strategies. With a passion for simplifying complex financial topics, Nidhi helps readers make informed money decisions with confidence. She can be reached at [email protected]
Studycafe
New Delhi, Delhi, India
1833
Up Next

Loading suggestions…