2017 (12) TMI 1418 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of late filing fee u/s 234E - delay of 105 days as per intimation under section 200A - Held that - Admittedly the default has been committed by assessee prior to 01.06.2015. As the legal issue raised in the present case is squarely covered by the ratio by this Tribunal in the case of Gajanan Construction (2016 (10) TMI 92 - ITAT PUNE), respectfully following the same we are also of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer is not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act by way of intimation issued under section 200A of the Act, in the case of present assessee since the default committed is prior to 01/06/15. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act for delayed TDS returns.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order confirming the levy of a late filing fee of ?6,000 under section 234E of the Income Tax Act. The appellant's TDS returns were accepted by TIN but later, a late fee was imposed by the DCIT for a delay of 105 days. The appellant argued that the statutory provision of section 200A was inserted by the Finance Act 2015 and was not retrospective. The appellant relied on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal and contended that TDS statements filed before 01/06/15 could not be charged with late fees under section 234E. The Departmental Representative referred to a decision by the Bombay High Court but could not refute the observations made by the Pune ITAT in a similar case.

The main issue to be determined was whether the assessing officer could levy a late fee under section 234E for delayed TDS returns. The Tribunal considered a similar issue in the case of Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT and referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal held that an appeal is maintainable against the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act. The Tribunal found that the assessing officer cannot charge fees under section 234E through an intimation issued under section 200A for defaults before 01/06/2015. As the appellant's default occurred before this date, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, following the precedent set by the Gajanan Construction case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the appellant, stating that the assessing officer is not authorized to charge fees under section 234E through an intimation issued under section 200A for defaults before 01/06/2015. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 27th December 2017.