9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 429 - AT - Income TaxLevy of fees u/s 234E - intimation issued under section 200A in respect of processing of TDS returns - powers with AO - 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. Also has held that in the absence of enabling provision under section 200A prior to 01.06.15 such a power was not vested with the AO (TDS). In the instant cases the intimation u/s 200A has been processed prior to 01-06-2015. 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. Demand raised by the AO under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the intimation processed under section 200A prior to 01-06-2015. Detailed Analysis: Issue: Demand Raised Under Section 234E in Intimation Processed Under Section 200A Prior to 01-06-2015 Background and Facts: - The appeals concern the levy of fees under section 234E for delays in filing TDS statements, which were processed under section 200A before 01-06-2015. - The relevant period is post 01-07-2012 (the date of insertion of section 234E) but before 01-06-2015 (the date of amendment to section 200A allowing such adjustments). Tribunal's Observations: - The Tribunal noted that the Amritsar Bench in "Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT" held that prior to 01-06-2015, there was no enabling provision in section 200A for adjusting fees under section 234E while processing TDS statements. - The Tribunal emphasized that the amendment allowing such adjustments came into effect only from 01-06-2015. Hence, any adjustments made before this date were not legally valid. Contentions of the Assessees: - The assessees argued that the TDS statements should be processed as per the provisions of section 200A in force during the relevant period, which did not allow for the levy of fees under section 234E. - They cited the Amritsar Bench's decision, asserting that the levy of fees under section 234E could not be included in the processing of TDS statements under section 200A before 01-06-2015. Contentions of the Department: - The Department relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in "Rashmikant Kundalia vs. Union of India," which upheld the constitutional validity of section 234E. - They argued that section 234E is an independent section, and the AO (TDS) had the jurisdiction to levy penalties for delays in filing TDS statements as per section 200(3). Tribunal's Conclusion: - The Tribunal clarified that the Bombay High Court's decision did not address whether fees under section 234E could be adjusted while processing TDS statements under section 200A for the period before 01-06-2015. - The Tribunal reiterated that the absence of an enabling provision under section 200A before 01-06-2015 meant that the AO (TDS) could not adjust fees under section 234E while processing TDS statements. - They referenced the Chennai Bench's decision in "Smt. G. Indhirani & Others vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS," which supported the view that such adjustments were not permissible before 01-06-2015. - The Tribunal noted that while the AO (TDS) could pass a separate order for levying fees under section 234E, such fees could not be adjusted during the processing of TDS statements under section 200A before 01-06-2015. Final Judgment: - The Tribunal set aside the demands raised under section 234E in the intimation processed under section 200A prior to 01-06-2015. - All the appeals of the assessees were allowed. Pronouncement: - The order was pronounced in the Court on 24.08.2016.
|
