Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 343 - AT - Income TaxFee levied u/s 234E - fee was leviable u/s 200A for filing of returns - delay in filing of quarterly TDS statement - HELD THAT - In the absence of any machinery provisions to charge the late fee u/s 200A, the issue of levy of fee u/s 234E which was introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2015 has been examined in the context of its applicability whether retrospective or prospective. In case of Fatehraj Singhvi Ors. vs. UOI Ors. 2016 (9) TMI 964 - 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 as such, notices issued u/s 200 A of the Act for computation and intimation of payment of late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act relating to the period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015 was not maintainable. At the same time, in case of Rajesh Kourani 2017 (7) TMI 458 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has decided the issue against the assessee. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the decision rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable products Limited 1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT pronouncing that, when there are conflicting decisions the view taken in favour of the assessee should be followed is relevant to adjudication of the matter before us. Hence, the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Authorities confirming the late fee levied by the AO u/s 200A read with section 234E in all the cases wherein the defaults were prior to 01 .06.2015 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus the fee levied u/ s 234E is hereby ordered to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Late fee u/s 200A for delay in filing TDS statements, applicability of fee u/s 234E, retrospective or prospective nature of amendments, conflicting decisions by High Courts. Late Fee u/s 200A: The cases involved the issue of late fee u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the delay in filing quarterly TDS statements. The ACIT/ITD(TDS- CPC) issued notices for payment of late fee for various financial years. The First Appellate Authorities held that the fee was leviable u/s 200A for filing returns. Applicability of Fee u/s 234E: The provisions of 200A(1)(c) inserted by the Finance Act 2015 were examined. The absence of machinery provisions to charge late fee u/s 200A led to the examination of the levy of fee u/s 234E introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The issue of its applicability, whether retrospective or prospective, was considered. Retrospective or Prospective Nature of Amendments: The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that the amendments brought in w.e.f. 01.06.2015 were prospective. It ruled that notices issued u/s 200A for late filing fee u/s 234E relating to the period before 01.06.2015 were not maintainable. In contrast, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decided against the assessee in a similar case. Conflicting Decisions by High Courts: Considering conflicting decisions by different High Courts, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Vegetable Products Limited case, stating that the view favoring the assessee should be followed in such situations. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the late fee levied u/s 234E should be deleted, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed.
|