9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1524 - AT - Income TaxLate filing fee u/s 234E - intimation u/s 200A - Late filing of TDS returns / statement - Scope of amendment - HELD THAT - Amendment to Section 200(3) of the I.T. Act was made only with effect from June 1st, 2015. Except for the Quarter-1 in the assessment year 2016-2017 fee levied u/s.234E of the Act for the 2nd, 3rd 4th quarters of the Financial Year 2012-2013 and for 1st, 2nd, 3rd 4th quarters of the Financial Year 2013-2014 and for 1st, 2nd, 3rd 4th quarters of the Financial Year 2014-2015 on account of late filing of TDS return, are coming under the purview of amendment to Section 200(3) Fee levied u/s.234E of the Act while processing the statement of tax deducted at source was beyond the scope provided under Section 200A of the Act. Respectfully following the judicial precedent GLEE PHARMA PVT LTD VERSUS DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD 2017 (8) TMI 1455 - ITAT CUTTACK AND GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL, UNIT-VI, BHUBANESWAR VERSUS ACIT (TDS) , BHUBANESWAR 2019 (10) TMI 1270 - ITAT CUTTACK we set aside the orders of lower authorities and direct the AO to delete the levy of fee u/s.234E.
Issues Involved:
Levy of late filing fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background and Context: The assessee, a Government-aided college, filed TDS returns belatedly for various quarters across the financial years 2012-2013 to 2015-2016. Consequently, the ACIT (CPC-TDS), Ghaziabad raised demands under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act for late filing fees. 2. CIT(A) Decision: The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee, affirming that the late filing of quarterly TDS returns warranted the imposition of fees under Section 234E. 3. Appeals to ITAT: The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), arguing that the issue was covered by previous decisions in favor of the assessee, specifically citing the case of Glee Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and other similar cases. 4. Arguments Presented: - Assessee’s Argument: The assessee relied on the Tribunal's earlier decisions, which held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods before the amendment effective from 01.06.2015 was not permissible. - Revenue’s Argument: The Revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities, maintaining that the fees were correctly levied. 5. Tribunal’s Findings: The Tribunal considered the following points: - The assessee had deducted and deposited TDS within the stipulated time. - The demand notices did not indicate any short payment or deduction defaults. - The issue pertained to periods before the amendment to Section 234E effective from 01.06.2015. 6. Precedent Cases: The Tribunal referred to the decision in Glee Pharma Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer (AO) did not have the authority to levy fees under Section 234E while processing returns under Section 200A. This decision was based on the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in Fatehraj Singhvi v. Union of India, which established that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective and not retrospective. 7. Specific Observations: - The Tribunal noted that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, was effective from 01.06.2015 and could not be applied retrospectively. - The Tribunal also referenced the decision in Govt. High School, Unit-VI, Bhubaneswar, which supported the view that fees could not be levied for periods before the amendment. 8. Tribunal’s Decision: - For the periods before 01.06.2015, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the AO to delete the fees levied under Section 234E. This applied to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters of FY 2012-2013, all quarters of FY 2013-2014, and all quarters of FY 2014-2015. - For the 1st quarter of FY 2015-2016 (relevant to AY 2016-2017), the Tribunal upheld the levy of fees, as this period fell after the amendment date of 01.06.2015. Conclusion: The appeals for periods before 01.06.2015 were allowed, and the fees levied under Section 234E were directed to be deleted. The appeal for the 1st quarter of FY 2015-2016 was dismissed, and the fees were upheld. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on 30/06/2020.
|
