9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 249 - AT - Income TaxLevying late filing fees u/s 234E - Intimation issued u/s 200A - delay in filing quarterly TDS return - HELD THAT - In the instant case, as well, there is a continued default beyond 1.06.2015, therefore, following the decision of SHRI UTTAM CHAND GANGWAL M/S ADINATH STONES 2019 (1) TMI 1355 - ITAT JAIPUR , the levy of fees under section 234E, which is levied for each day during which the default continues, is upheld for the period 1.06.2015 to the date of actual filing of the TDS statement and the balance late filing fees so levied is hereby deleted. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Similar fact pattern exist in respect of all other cases where undisputedly, the TDS statements pertaining to the financial year 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 have been filed in year 2017 and intimation issued by the ACIT-TDS in December 2017.
Issues involved:
1. Jurisdiction to levy late filing fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act. 2. Interpretation of amendments to section 200A of the Act. 3. Validity of assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer. Detailed Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the jurisdiction to levy late filing fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act. The appellant challenged the demand raised by the ACIT for late filing levy under section 234E for the 2nd Quarter of the financial year 2012-13. The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer did not have the authority to levy fees prior to the amendment made to section 200A of the Act, effective from 1.06.2015. The appellant contended that the amendment introduced a mechanism for charging fees, which was not available before 1.06.2015. The appellant relied on various decisions to support their argument. 2. The interpretation of amendments to section 200A of the Act is crucial in determining the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees. The appellant highlighted that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2015, introduced clause (c) in section 200A(1), granting the Assessing Officer the competence to charge fees under section 234E. The appellant emphasized that prior to this amendment, there was no provision for charging fees for defaults in filing TDS statements. The appellant argued that retrospective application of the amendment would be impermissible in law. 3. The validity of assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was a key aspect of the case. The Assessing Officer contended that the late filing fees were imposed after the TDS return was filed in 2017, well after the effective date of the amendment to section 200A. The Assessing Officer argued that the jurisdiction to levy fees under section 234E was established post the effective date of the amendment. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was within his jurisdiction to levy fees under section 234E for the period after 1.06.2015, irrespective of the quarter to which the TDS return pertained. In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals filed by the assessee, upholding the levy of late filing fees under section 234E for the period after 1.06.2015 to the date of actual filing of the TDS statements. The Tribunal emphasized that the jurisdiction to levy fees under section 234E was prospective in nature and applied the same reasoning to all appeals involving similar fact patterns.
|
