IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.3851/M/2015 (Assessment Year: 2013-2014) (Quarter-3) I.T.A. No.3852/M/2015 (Assessment Year: 2013-2014) (Quarter-4) Almond Blossom Decorazione DCIT, CPC, TDS, Pvt Ltd., Gaziabad. Vs. 312, AL Azhar Bldg, Saifee Mahal, Al Marg, Malabar Hills, Mumbai 400 006. PAN : AAAICA6987F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Chirag Rameshchandra Shah Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, DR Date of Hearing : 03.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 03.10.2016 O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are two appeals under consideration involving Quarter-3 and Quarter- 4 of assessment year 2013-2014. Since, issues raised in these appeals are inter-connected, therefore, for sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed off in this consolidated order. Adjudication of these appeals is given in following paragraphs of this order. 2. Briefly stated relevant facts of these cases are that AO passed assessment order u/s 200A of Act in connection with levy of late filing fees for Quarter-3 and 4. In connection with net payable for Quarter-3 works out to Rs. 53,720/- and for Quarter-4 is Rs. 29,260/-. These amounts include interest on late payment amounting to Rs. 9,720/- for Quarter-3 and Rs. 9,255/- for Quarter-4. In connection with above levy of filing fees, assessee appealed to first appellate authority. 2 3. During proceedings before first appellate authority, after considering submissions of assessee, CIT (A) dismissed appeals. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 4. During proceedings before us, at outset, ld Counsel for assessee submitted that assessee does not press demand sofaras interest on late fees for both Quarters is concerned . Accordingly, that part of demand is sustained at concession granted by Ld Counsel for assessee. 5. Regarding balance of demand raised u/s 200A of Act, Ld Counsel for assessee submitted that order of CIT (A) passed ex-parte and CIT (A) has erroneously relied on Bombay High Court judgment in case of Rashmikant Kundalia vs. Union of India, dated 9th February, 2015. No citation is given in orders of CIT (A). Further, Ld Counsel for assessee submitted that case of assessee is squarely covered by order of Tribunal in case of Kash Realtors Pvt Ltd. vs. Anr. Vs. ITO & Anr, (47 CCH 0523) (Mum. Trib) and decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad in case of Siddhi Vinayak Developers vs. DCIT, in ITA Nos.2321 & 2322/Ahd/2015, dated 14.10.2015. cited decisions of Tribunal are relevant for proposition that while processing statement u/s 200A of Act, AO should not make any adjustment by levying fees u/s 234E of Act for period prior to 1.6.2015. Assessee was given relief in said two cases relying on decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench in case of Smt. G. Indhirani & Others vs. DCIT in ITA No.109/Mad/2015 apart from other decisions. 6. After hearing both parties, we find, period involved in present appeal falls prior to 1.6.2015. In our opinion, there is need for examining closely applicability of judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of Rashmikant Kundalia (supra). Considering above, we are of opinion that this matter should be remanded to file of CIT (A) for fresh decision in light of above cited decisions of Tribunal (supra) as well as decision relied upon by CIT (A) and after comparing facts of said cases to facts of present case. Assessee is also directed to ensure his appearance before CIT (A) to avoid further ex-parte orders, if any. With above directions, both appeals 3 of assessee are remanded to file of CIT (A). Accordingly, grounds raised by assessee in both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In result, both appeals filed by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 3rd October, 2016. Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; 03.10.2016 . OKK , Sr. PS Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent. 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. ,DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Almond Blossom Decorazione Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT, CPC, TDS, Gaziabad