9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 1131 - AT - Income TaxLate filing fee u/s. 234E - intimation u/s 200A - Late filing of TDS returns / statement - contention 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 - conflicting decisions by different High Courts - HELD THAT - Identical issue has been examined in the case of Supreme Brahmaputra (JV) 2020 (9) TMI 289 - ITAT DELHI when there are conflicting decisions, the view taken in favour of the assessee should be followed, the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) confirming the late fee levied by the AO u/s 200A read with section 234E as the defaults are prior to 01.06.2015, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence fee levied u/s 234E is ordered to be deleted. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of the adjustments made under Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Levy of Late Filing Fee under Section 234E: The primary issue revolves around whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified in levying a late filing fee of ?72,200 under Section 234E for the delay in filing the TDS statement for the first quarter of FY 2014-15. The appellant argued that the provisions of Section 200A, which empower the AO to levy such fees, did not include any machinery provisions for making such an addition while processing the TDS statement/return. This contention was deemed tenable by the Tribunal. The Tribunal referenced several judgments, including the case of Supreme Brahmaputra (JV) vs. TDS CPC, Ghaziabad, where it was held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) by the Finance Act, 2015, effective from 01.06.2015, did not have a retroactive effect. Hence, late filing fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods before this date. The Tribunal also cited the Karnataka High Court's decision in Fatehraj Singhvi vs. UOI, which supported the view that the amendment was prospective and not applicable to periods before 01.06.2015. 2. Validity of Adjustments Made under Section 200A: The Tribunal examined whether the AO was empowered to levy late filing fees under Section 234E while processing the TDS statement under Section 200A. The Tribunal noted that the enabling provisions under Section 200A(1)(c) were introduced by the Finance Act, 2015, effective from 01.06.2015. Therefore, for TDS statements filed for periods before this date, the AO did not have the authority to levy such fees. The Tribunal also referenced the Delhi High Court's decision in Remfry and Sons, which emphasized that procedural or technical mistakes should not impede justice. It was observed that the AO's action of levying fees under Section 234E for periods before the amendment was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments under Section 200A. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E for the period before 01.06.2015 was not valid as the enabling provisions under Section 200A were prospective. Consequently, the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the late fee levied by the AO was not sustainable. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the fee levied under Section 234E was ordered to be deleted.
|
