2021 (8) TMI 600 - AT - Income Tax

Late filing fees u/s. 234E - delay in furnishing the submission of tax deduction at source - HELD THAT - It is undisputed fact that assessee has made delay in furnishing submission of tax deduction at source as prescribed under rule 31A of Income Tax Rule, 1962. Considering the decision of RAJESH KOURANI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, AND 4 2017 (7) TMI 458 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT we do not find any error in the decision of ld. CIT(A), therefore, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Issues:
Appeal against levy of late filing fees for form 26Q and form 24Q for Financial Year 2012-13 and 2013-14 under section 200A r.w.r. 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:

1. Late Filing Fees Imposition:
The primary issue in the case was the imposition of late filing fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act for the delay in submitting tax deduction at source. The Assessing Officer had levied fees amounting to ?89,065, leading to the assessee filing an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the levy of fees, citing the provisions of Section 200 and Section 234E of the Act. The CIT(A) referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in a similar case, emphasizing that the charging section (Section 234E) cannot be subservient to the machinery section (Section 200A). The High Court's judgment highlighted that the machinery provision cannot override the charging provision, clarifying that Section 200A merely provides a mechanism for processing statements and computing fees under Section 234E. The CIT(A) concluded that the fees levied by the AO under Section 234E were correct, dismissing the appeals based on the established legal principles.

2. Interpretation of Sections 200A and 234E:
The case involved a detailed analysis of the interplay between Section 200A and Section 234E of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) referred to the provisions of Rule 31A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which mandate the submission of tax deduction statements within the specified time. The CIT(A) highlighted that Section 234E, a charging provision for late filing fees, was inserted into the Act from a specific date. The CIT(A) emphasized that Section 200A, as a machinery provision, does not create a charge but facilitates the computation of fees under Section 234E. The judgment underscored that the mechanism provided under Section 200A is essential for processing statements and computing fees, ensuring that the charging provision of Section 234E is appropriately applied. The decision relied on legal precedents to establish that the machinery provision cannot dilute or supersede the charging provision, maintaining the integrity of the statutory framework.

3. Application of Precedents and Legal Interpretation:
The judgment extensively relied on legal precedents and interpretations to support the decision regarding the imposition of late filing fees. The CIT(A) referenced the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in a similar case, emphasizing the fundamental principle that machinery provisions cannot override charging provisions. By analyzing the provisions of Section 200A and Section 234E in conjunction with relevant legal precedents, the CIT(A) concluded that the fees imposed by the Assessing Officer were valid and in accordance with the statutory framework. The decision highlighted the importance of legal clarity and adherence to established principles in tax matters, ensuring consistency and compliance with the law.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad upheld the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee for the relevant assessment years. The detailed analysis of the legal provisions, precedents, and the interplay between charging and machinery provisions formed the basis for the decision, emphasizing the importance of statutory interpretation and adherence to established legal principles in tax matters.

← Previous Next →