2017 (8) TMI 1455 - AT - Income Tax

Late filing fee under section 234E - delay in filing of the return and, accordingly, demand notices were issued u/s. 200A - Held that - Only after 01.06.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act while processing the statement under section 200A of the Act and not before. Therefore, respectfully relying the order of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi v. Union of India 2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT the impugned intimation of the lower authorities levying fee under section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly the intimation under section 200A as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in so far as levy of fee under section 234E is set aside and fee levied u/s 243E in all the appeals are ordered to be deleted. - decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against CIT(A) orders for assessment year 2013-14
- Levy of late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act
- Precedential interpretation of section 200A and 234E by different High Courts

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14. The issue revolved around the levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act due to delays in filing e-TDS returns for various quarters.

2. The CIT(A) upheld the action of the DCIT (TDS), Bangalore, stating that section 234E allows for the levy of fees for late filing of TDS returns. The CIT(A) emphasized that the nature of the requirement for the levy of late filing fees under section 234E remains unchanged, even if written under section 200A.

3. The assessee presented a precedent from the Tribunal in a similar case, where the levy of fees under section 234E was deleted. The Tribunal observed that prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer did not have the authority to levy fees under section 234E while processing statements under section 200A. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee based on this interpretation.

4. The Revenue cited a judgment from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which favored the Revenue's position. However, the Tribunal noted that in the absence of a specific order from the jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal should follow the judgment that benefits the assessee, as per established legal principles.

5. Referring to the Karnataka High Court's decision in Fatehraj Singhvi v. Union of India, the Tribunal highlighted that the AO could only levy fees under section 234E post-June 1, 2015, while processing statements under section 200A. The Tribunal, following the Karnataka High Court's ruling, set aside the levy of fees under section 234E in the present case for the financial year 2013-14.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee, deleting the levy of fees under section 234E for the relevant quarters in the assessment year 2013-14. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the interpretation provided by the Karnataka High Court, emphasizing the prospective effect of the relevant statutory provisions.