A Recovery Letter Cannot Become an Appeal Order Merely by Calling It One in Form 35

Kedar Infrastructure Vs ITO (TDS) (ITAT Pune)

A Recovery Letter Cannot Become an Appeal Order Merely by Calling It One in Form 35

Pune ITAT dismisses six appeals against TDS late filing fee demands without deciding whether the fees were valid

A deductor receives a letter asking it to clear an outstanding TDS demand. It downloads a justification report showing how the demand arose and files Form 35, describing the order appealed against as one under section 200A. But what if the section 200A intimation itself is neither attached nor produced during the appeal? That was the central issue before the Pune ITAT in Kedar Infrastructure v. ITO (TDS), ITA Nos. 228 to 233/Pun/2023, decided on 5 April 2023. The common order covered six appeals, with ITA No. 228/PUN/2023 for AY 2014-15 (Form 26Q for Q1) treated as the lead case.

The assessee had filed six appeals concerning demands reflected in its TDS records. In the lead appeal, the justification report showed a late filing fee of ₹7,712 under section 234E. The assessee disputed the demand on two grounds. First, it contended that the order under section 200A and the consequential demand notice had not been served, and that the authorities had not proved such service. Secondly, it argued that a fee under section 234E could not be confirmed through processing under section 200A for the period before 1 June 2015.