9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1643 - AT - Income TaxLevy of fee u/s 234E - whether late filing fee u/s 234E has rightly been charged in the intimation issued u/s 200A/206CB while proceeding the TDS returns/statements the enabling clause (c) having been inserted in the section w.e.f. 01.06.2015 - Held that - There was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E. As such as per the assessee in respect of TDS statement filed for a period up to 31.03.2015 no late fee could be levied in the intimation issued u/s 200A of the Act. We accept the grievance of the assessees as genuine. Accordingly the orders of the CIT(A) are reversed and the fee so levied under section 234E of the Act is cancelled. - See Sudershan Goyal vs. DCIT (TDS) 2018 (5) TMI 1626 - ITAT AGRA - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
Late filing fee u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Whether rightly charged in the intimation issued u/s 200A/206CB of the Act for TDS returns/statements filed up to 31.03.2015. Analysis: Issue 1: Late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act The appeals were against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Agra, upholding the levy of late fees u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The main issue was whether the late filing fee was rightly charged in the intimation issued u/s 200A/206CB of the Act for TDS returns/statements filed up to 31.03.2015. The enabling clause (c) was inserted in the section w.e.f. 01.06.2015, and earlier, there was no provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand regarding the levy of fee u/s 234E. The contention was that for TDS statements filed up to 31.03.2015, no late fee could be imposed in the intimation issued u/s 200A of the Act. Issue 2: Judicial Decisions The Tribunal referred to a previous case, Sudershan Goyal vs. DCIT (TDS), where a similar issue was decided. The Tribunal noted that the ld. CIT(A) had relied on the decision in the case of 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India' while confirming the levy of late fees. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this view, citing the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI', which favored the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that when there is a difference of opinion among High Courts on an issue, the view in favor of the assessee should be followed, as held by the Supreme Court in 'CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.'. The Tribunal also highlighted that the substitution made by clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A should be interpreted prospectively, not retrospectively. Issue 3: Decision and Outcome Based on the above analysis and considering the precedents, the Tribunal accepted the grievance of the assessees as genuine. Consequently, the orders of the CIT(A) upholding the levy of the fee under section 234E of the Act were reversed, and the late filing fee was canceled. The appeals of the assessees were allowed in light of the legal interpretation and the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments, judicial decisions, and the ultimate outcome regarding the levy of late filing fees under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
|
