9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 16 - AT - Income TaxLevy of fees u/s 234E - processing the TDS statement under section 200A - assessee entered into an agreement for purchase of 96 flats and while making a part payment of the sale consideration the assessee deducted tax @ 1% under section 194IA - assessee paid the TDS amount in Form no.26QB belatedly - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2019 (7) TMI 290 - ITAT MUMBAI the claim of the assessee that purchases of all the flats is to be taken as a single transaction, therefore, the levy of fee prescribed under section 234E of the Act is to be restricted to one challan cum statement filed in Form no.26QB, is unacceptable. When the assessee itself has filed separate TDS statements in respect of the tax deducted at source relating to the respective flats, while processing such statements under section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to levy fee under section 234E of the Act taking into account the delay in filing each of the statements. That being the case, assessee s contention that fee under section 234E of the Act is to be restricted to one transaction is not acceptable. At this stage, it will be relevant to observe, clause (c) of sub section (1) of section 200A of the Act contemplates that while processing the TDS return, fee under section 234E of the Act shall be computed. Thus, use of word shall in the aforesaid provision makes it mandatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to levy fee under section 234E of the Act. Since, the assessee has filed separate TDS statements under section 200(3) of the Act read with rule 26QB, there is no error on the part of the Assessing Officer in computing fee under section 234E of the Act while processing such statements. As regards the contention of the learned Authorised Representative that appeal against levy of fee under section 234E of the Act is maintainable before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), we find merit in the same. Therefore, to that extent, the assessee s contention is accepted. However, it will not make much difference as learned Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue on merit. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
Levy of fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while processing TDS statement under section 200A. Detailed Analysis: 1. Primary Issue - Levy of Fee under Section 234E: The appeal challenged the order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the levy of fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dispute arose due to a delay in filing TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. The Assessing Officer imposed the fee under section 234E as the statements were not filed within the prescribed time. The Tribunal, based on previous decisions, upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, emphasizing that the fee under section 234E is mandatory in cases of default in filing TDS statements. 2. Applicability of Section 194IA of the Act: The Tribunal rejected the contention that section 194IA of the Act was not applicable due to the absence of immovable property transfer. It was established that the deductor's compliance with tax deduction at source under section 194IA indicated the transaction's nature falling within its purview, making the contention redundant. 3. Form no.26QB and Section 200(3) Applicability: The Tribunal dismissed the argument that Form no.26QB, being a challan-cum-statement generated on the payment date, was exempt from section 200(3) requirements. It clarified that all TDS provisions, including section 194IA, fall under the purview of section 200(3), necessitating timely submission of TDS statements. 4. Additional Work Burden and Fee Imposition: The Tribunal upheld the imposition of fee under section 234E, stating that the delay in filing TDS returns burdens the Department, justifying the fee as a privilege for late filing. The fee was deemed a fixed charge for the extra service required due to late filing, as established by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 5. Multiple Transactions vs. Single Transaction: The Tribunal rejected the argument to treat all flat purchases as a single transaction for fee calculation under section 234E. Each flat's separate TDS statements required individual fee computation based on the delay in filing. The mandatory nature of fee imposition under section 200A was emphasized. 6. Appeal Against Levy of Fee under Section 234E: The Tribunal acknowledged the maintainability of appeals against the fee under section 234E before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, as the Commissioner had decided the issue on merit, there was no interference required. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the previous decision and upheld the levy of fee under section 234E. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, following precedent and emphasizing the mandatory nature of fee imposition under section 234E for delayed TDS statement filings. The detailed analysis of each issue provides clarity on the Tribunal's decision and the legal reasoning behind upholding the Assessing Officer's decision.
|
