2017 (3) TMI 1869 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of fee u/s. 234E - appellant has filed TDS statement u/s. 200(3) beyond the prescribed due date - whether the late filing fee of TDS return u/s.234-E can be levied prior to 01/06/2015? - HELD THAT - As decided in PERFECT CROPSCIENCE PVT. LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 2016 (1) TMI 1271 - ITAT AHMEDABAD issue is whether such a levy could be effected in the course of intimation under section 200A. The answer is clearly in negative. No other provision enabling a demand in respect of this levy has been pointed out to us and it is thus an admitted position that in the absence of the enabling provision under section 200A, no such levy could be effected. As intimation under section 200A, raising a demand or directing a refund to the tax deductor, can only be passed within one year from the end of the financial year within which the related TDS statement is filed, and as the related TDS statement was filed on 19th February 2014, such a levy could only have been made at best within 31st March 2015. That time has already elapsed and the defect is thus not curable even at this stage. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, the impugned levy of fees under section 234 E is unsustainable in law. We, therefore, uphold the grievance of the assessee and delete the impugned levy of fee under section 234E. When the above judicial precedent was brought to the notice of the ld. Departmental Representative, he did not have much to say except to place his reliance on the orders of the authorities below. He fairly did not dispute that the provisions accepting levy of late filing fees under section 234E have indeed been brought to the statute w.e.f. 1st June, 2015 and the impugned order was passed much before that date. In view of the above discussions and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we hereby delete the levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act by way of impugned intimation issued - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Levy of fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the levy of a fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act amounting to ?25,000 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The appellant challenged the levy of fee for filing the TDS statement beyond the prescribed due date under section 200A of the Act. The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A), leading to the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad.

The Tribunal examined the issue of whether the late filing fee of TDS return under section 234E could be levied before 1st June 2015. Referring to various judicial precedents, the Tribunal observed that the adjustment for the levy of fees under section 234E was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments under section 200A of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the enabling provision for raising a demand in respect of the levy of fees under section 234E was absent before 1st June 2015. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the impugned levy of fee under section 234E was unsustainable in law and deleted the levy, granting relief to the assessee.

The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and held that the late filing fee of ?25,000 should be deleted. The Tribunal emphasized that the impugned order was passed before the amendment in Section 200A of the Act, which allowed for the computation of fees under section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the late filing fee of TDS return under section 234E of the Act, following the precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench decision. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and granting relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the deletion of the late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act based on the legal analysis and precedents cited during the proceedings. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act and previous judicial decisions, providing relief to the appellant in this case.