9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 902 - AT - Income TaxLevy of late fee u/s 234E - delay in filing the above TDS statement - Fee for default in furnishing statements - statement processed u/s 200A - assessee contended that AO could levy fee u/s.234E of the Act while processing a return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act only by virtue of the provisions of Sec.200A(1)(c), (d) (f) of the Act and those provisions came into force only from 1.6.2015 and therefore the authority issuing intimation u/s. 200A of the Act while processing return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act, could not levy fee u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of statement of TDS filed prior to 1.6.2015 - HELD THAT - Keeping in mind that technicalities should not stand in the way of rendering substantive justice, as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others 2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT we are of the view that interest of justice would be met if the delay in filing appeals by the Assessee before CIT(A) is condoned and the issue with regard to levy of interest u/s.234-E of the Act be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration in accordance with the observations made in this order.
Issues:
Late filing of TDS statement leading to levy of late fee under section 234E of the Income-Tax Act, 1961; Validity of charging fee under section 234E while processing TDS returns filed under section 200(3) of the Act; Condonation of delay in filing appeals before CIT(A); Dismissal of appeals due to delay in filing or missing relevant orders under section 200A of the Act. Late Fee under Section 234E: The appellant filed TDS statements for various quarters with a delay, resulting in the Assessing Officer (AO) levying late fees under section 234E of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. Section 234E mandates a fee of ?200 per day for late filing of TDS statements. The appellant challenged the validity of this fee, arguing that the provisions enabling the levy of this fee came into effect only from 1.6.2015. Citing a Karnataka High Court decision, the appellant contended that no fee under section 234E could be charged for TDS returns filed before 1.6.2015. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals: The CIT(A) found some appeals filed by the appellant to be belated, with insufficient reasons for the delay. While the appellant claimed that clarity on the levy of interest under section 234E emerged post a High Court decision, the CIT(A) observed significant delays in filing the appeals, leading to dismissal of those with delays. The appellant's reasons for delay included a change in the registered office address and lack of communication regarding the demand orders under section 200A of the Act. Validity of Charging Fee under Section 234E while Processing TDS Returns: The appellant argued that the AO could only levy fees under section 234E while processing TDS returns under section 200(3) of the Act based on the provisions of section 200A(1)(c), (d), and (f). These provisions, according to the appellant, came into effect from 1.6.2015. The appellant's contention was supported by the Karnataka High Court's decision, emphasizing that the levy of interest under section 234E for TDS returns before 1.6.2015 would be illegal. Dismissal of Appeals for Missing Relevant Orders under Section 200A: Certain appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) due to missing relevant orders under section 200A of the Act. The CIT(A) held that these appeals were defective as they were filed without the necessary orders. The Tribunal directed the appellant to file these orders before the CIT(A) for further consideration on merits. Conclusion: Considering the circumstances and the principle of ensuring substantive justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and remanded the issue of interest under section 234E back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to allow the appellant to file the necessary orders under section 200A and consider the appeals on their merits. All appeals by the appellant were treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
|
