Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1648 - AT - Income TaxConstitutional validity of Section 234E - intimation of the demand notices U/s 200A - Late filing fee under Section 234E - Held that - In Mr Rashmikant Kundalia and another Versus Union of India and others 2015 (2) TMI 412 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT held that Section 234E of the Act is not punitive in nature but a fee which is a fixed charge for the extra service which the department has to prove due to the late filing of the TDS statements. Hence from both the decisions relied upon by the ld. DR, the issue of power of imposing late fee is not decided but the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Fatheraj Singhvi & ors. Vs. Union of India 2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and held that the late fee U/s 234E of the Act has raised vide impugned demand notice U/s 200A of the Act. We find force in the contention of the ld. AR of the assessee. If there is conflicting views taken by the two Hon ble Courts, then the view, which favours the assessee should be adopted. In this regard, the ld AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014 (9) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT). In view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (supra), the demand so raised are directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Appeal against late filing fee under Section 234E of the IT Act for TDS return filing. Analysis: Issue 1: Late filing fee under Section 234E The appeals were filed against separate orders passed by the ld. CIT(A)-III, Jaipur, regarding the late filing fee charged under Section 234E of the IT Act for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The common issue raised in all appeals was the imposition of late filing fees by the Assessing Officer (AO) for filing TDS returns late. The assessee contended that during the relevant period, there was no provision in Section 200A of the IT Act for charging such fees while processing quarterly statements in Form No. 26Q. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals, leading to the assessees approaching the ITAT Jaipur. Issue 2: Judicial Interpretation The ITAT Jaipur considered the arguments put forth by both parties. The assessee relied on the decision of the ITAT, Ahmadabad, and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court to support their case. The ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and cited a decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The ITAT referred to a recent decision of the Coordinate Bench of Jaipur ITAT and highlighted the judgments of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court. The ITAT emphasized that unless a contrary intention appears, legislation is presumed not to have a retrospective operation. Considering the conflicting views of different High Courts, the ITAT favored the assessee, following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in a relevant case. Issue 3: Decision and Rationale The ITAT, based on the legal precedents and analysis of the relevant provisions, allowed all the appeals of the assessees. The ITAT set aside the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to drop the demands raised under Section 234E for statements processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015. The ITAT concluded that the demands for late fees under Section 234E were not validly raised in the intimation issued under Section 200A. The ITAT also highlighted the nature of Section 234E as a fee for extra service due to late filing, not punitive in nature. Consequently, the ITAT held in favor of the assessee, directing the deletion of the demands raised as late filing fees. Conclusion In conclusion, the ITAT Jaipur allowed all the appeals of the assessees, emphasizing the legal interpretations, precedents, and principles governing the imposition of late filing fees under Section 234E of the IT Act. The ITAT's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the relevant legal provisions and judicial pronouncements, ensuring justice and fairness in the resolution of the appeals.
|