9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 63 - AT - Income TaxLevy of fees under section 234E - intimation issued under section 200A in respect of processing of TDS - Held that - We find that the issue in all these appeals is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Limited vs. DCIT 2015 (6) TMI 437 - ITAT AMRITSAR adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope of permissible adjustments contemplated under section 200A. The impugned levy of fees under section 234E is unsustainable in law. We, therefore, delete the impugned levy of fee under section 234E of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for defaults in furnishing TDS statements, could be levied in intimation under section 200A of the Act for the period prior to 01.06.2015. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing TDS Returns: The period in question is after 01.07.2012 but before 01.06.2015. Section 234E, which imposes fees for delays in filing TDS statements, was introduced on 01.07.2012, while the amendment to section 200A allowing for the adjustment of such fees during the processing of TDS statements came into effect on 01.06.2015. 2. Assessing Officer's Action: In these cases, the Assessing Officer (TDS) levied fees under section 234E through intimation under section 200A for delays in filing TDS statements. The assessees appealed to the CIT(A), who upheld the AO's decision. The assessees then appealed to the ITAT. 3. Tribunal's Precedents: The Tribunal referenced the Amritsar Bench's decision in "Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT," which held that before 01.06.2015, there was no provision under section 200A to adjust fees under section 234E while processing TDS statements. Thus, such adjustments were deemed legally invalid for the period prior to 01.06.2015. 4. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue cited the Bombay High Court's decision in "Rashmikant Kundalia vs. Union of India," which upheld the constitutional validity of section 234E. However, the Tribunal noted that this case did not address whether fees under section 234E could be adjusted under section 200A for the period before 01.06.2015. 5. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal reiterated that the issue was not the constitutional validity of section 234E but whether fees could be adjusted under section 200A before 01.06.2015. The Tribunal found that the AO (TDS) did not have the authority to make such adjustments before this date, as supported by decisions from the Amritsar and Chennai Benches. 6. Independent Section Argument: The Tribunal considered the argument that section 234E is an independent section, allowing the AO to levy fees separately for delays in filing TDS statements. The Tribunal agreed that while the AO could levy fees through a separate order, they could not adjust these fees while processing TDS statements under section 200A before 01.06.2015. 7. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the AO (TDS) exceeded their jurisdiction by adjusting fees under section 234E while processing TDS statements under section 200A for the period prior to 01.06.2015. The Tribunal set aside the adjustments made by the lower authorities and ruled in favor of the assessees. Result: All the appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the open court on 27.07.2016.
|
