9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1978 - AT - Income TaxLate filing fee under section 234E - delay in filing of the return and, accordingly, demand notices were issued u/s. 200A - scope of amendment in Section 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
Issues:
- Delay in filing appeals against levy of fee u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - Validity of late fee u/s 234E prior to the amendment in Section 200A. - Interpretation of enabling provisions for late fee levy u/s 234E. - Comparison of decisions in favor of and against the levy of late fee. Analysis: Issue 1: Delay in filing appeals The appeals were filed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) upholding the levy of fee u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A delay of 24 days in filing appeals for 37 out of 88 branches was explained by the appellant due to the hierarchical approval process within the organization. The delay was condoned for these appeals. Issue 2: Validity of late fee u/s 234E pre-amendment The appellants argued that prior to the amendment in Section 200A, there was no enabling provision for raising demand for late fee u/s 234E. They relied on various decisions to support their contention that the late fee could not be imposed by the Assessing Officer without the necessary enabling provisions. Issue 3: Interpretation of enabling provisions The ld. CIT(A) rejected the appellant's contention and upheld the levy of late fee u/s 234E, relying on the decision in the case of 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India'. The appellant argued that the provision of Section 234E is a charging provision and could not be applied retrospectively without express provision in the Act. Issue 4: Comparison of decisions The Tribunal compared various decisions, including 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India' and 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI', to determine the validity of the late fee levy u/s 234E. The Tribunal found that the decisions relied on by the ld. CIT(A) were distinguishable as they pertained to different issues, such as interest on TDS amounts, whereas the present cases focused on the liability of late fee for TDS statement delays post-amendment. Conclusion: The Tribunal, based on its previous decision in a similar case, accepted the appellant's grievance as genuine and reversed the orders of the CIT(A) to cancel the fee levied under section 234E of the Act. The issue related to short payment of tax deducted and interest on short payment of TDS was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper consideration. ITA No. 42/Agr/2018 was allowed for statistical purposes, and all other appeals were allowed.
|
