9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 146 - AT - Income TaxLate filing fee u/s 234E - Late filing of TDS returns / statement - intimations / orders passed u/s 200A - diversified views - conflicting decisions - contention of the assessee that fee u/s 234E is not leviable before 01.06.2015, i.e., the date when clause (c) was inserted in section 200A(1) for the computation of the said fees at the time of processing - scope of amendment - HELD THAT - No doubt the provisions of section 234 E have been held to be constitutionally valid which is not the dispute before us. So far as the argument of Ld. DR on rule of consistency is concerned, the same in our opinion is not absolute but in the present case we are faced with a situation which has been considered by our coordinate benches and there is no subsequent development to depart there from. Moreover, our coordinate Benches have followed one approach in view of conflicting decision of different High Courts in the absence of any decision of the Jurisdictional High Court. So far as the levy of fee u/s. 234E for defaults of period in filing TDS/TCS statements / returns even for the period prior to 1.06.2015 is concerned, as mentioned earlier there are conflicting decisions by different High Courts and there is no decision on this issue by the jurisdictional High Court. While Hon ble Karnataka High Court is in favour of the assessee holding that the amendments brought in statute w.e.f. 01.06.2015 are prospective in nature and hence notices issued u/s. 200 A of the Act for computation and intimation in payment of late filing fee u/s.234E of the Act relating to the period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015 were not maintainable, the Hon ble Gujarat High Court has decided the issue against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. After considering the above conflicting decisions, the coordinate benches of the Tribunal are taking the view that when there are conflicting decisions, the decision in favour of the assessee should be followed in the light of decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetables Products Limited 1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the late fee levied by the AO u/s. 200 A r.w.s. 234 E since the defaults are prior to 1.06.2015. Accordingly we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the fee levied u/s. 234 E and interest there on u/s. 220 (2) is directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A). 2. Levy of late filing fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act. 3. Validity of the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015. Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing Appeals Before the CIT(A): Summary of Arguments: - The assessee argued that the appeals were filed within the due date against the order passed under Section 154 on 6th February 2019, and not against the original order under Section 200A dated 27th July 2013. - The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals citing delays ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days, based on the original order date. - The assessee contended that the delay was due to a typographical error in Form No. 35, where Section 200A was mentioned instead of Section 154. Tribunal’s Findings: - The Tribunal held that there was no delay in filing the appeals, as the appeals were against the order under Section 154 dated 6th February 2019, and were filed within the due date. - The Tribunal cited the Delhi High Court's decision in Remfry and Sons vs. CIT, emphasizing that procedural/technical mistakes should not obstruct justice. - The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeals on the grounds of delay was incorrect. 2. Levy of Late Filing Fee Under Section 234E: Summary of Arguments: - The assessee argued that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E is not applicable for periods before 01.06.2015, as the enabling provision in Section 200A(1)(c) was inserted only from that date. - The Revenue contended that Section 234E is a charging provision effective from 01.07.2012, and the fee is mandatory for defaults in filing TDS statements, regardless of the date of insertion of Section 200A(1)(c). Tribunal’s Findings: - The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi vs. UOI, which held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective and not applicable for defaults prior to 01.06.2015. - The Tribunal also considered the conflicting decision of the Gujarat High Court in Rajesh Kourani vs. UOI, which upheld the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods before 01.06.2015. - Following the principle that in case of conflicting decisions, the decision favoring the assessee should be followed (Vegetable Products Ltd. case), the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee. - The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015 is not justified, and accordingly, the fee and interest levied were directed to be deleted. 3. Validity of Levy of Fees Under Section 234E for Periods Prior to 01.06.2015: Summary of Arguments: - The Revenue argued that Section 234E is a charging provision effective from 01.07.2012, and the fee is mandatory for defaults in filing TDS statements. - The Revenue cited various High Court decisions upholding the validity of Section 234E and argued that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is merely procedural. Tribunal’s Findings: - The Tribunal noted the conflicting views of different High Courts on the applicability of Section 234E for periods before 01.06.2015. - The Tribunal emphasized the principle of following the decision favoring the assessee in case of conflicting judgments. - The Tribunal concluded that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015 is not valid, and the fee and interest levied were directed to be deleted. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee, holding that there was no delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015 is not justified. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the fee and interest levied under Section 234E and Section 220(2) respectively.
|
