Kedar Associates Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
“We Learnt of the TDS Demand Only Later”-But a 2017 Rectification Letter Told a Different Story
Pune ITAT dismisses four delayed appeals against section 234E fees without deciding the levy on merits
A deductor who says it never received a TDS processing intimation may have a case for explaining a delayed appeal. But that explanation becomes difficult to sustain if its own earlier correspondence shows that it already knew of the fee demand. This was the decisive fact in Kedar Associates v. ITO (TDS), ITA Nos. 1530 to 1533/Pun/2024, decided by the Pune ITAT on 29 November 2024.
The assessee, a partnership firm, had filed quarterly TDS statements for periods relating to AYs 2013–14 and 2014–15. In the lead appeal, concerning the second quarter of FY 2012–13, the statement was filed 274 days late. CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad, levied a fee of ₹54,800 under section 234E, calculated at ₹200 per day, while processing the statement under section 200A on 23 November 2013.
The firm disputed the fee, arguing that a section 234E demand could not have been raised through section 200A processing for a period before 1 June 2015. It also said that it had not received the original section 200A intimation and learnt of the demand only when it downloaded a demand letter or justification report from the TRACES portal.
