2022 (6) TMI 128 - HC - Income Tax

Late filing fee u/s 234E - Fee for default in furnishing statements - HELD THAT - This Court had already declared that section 234E has no application prior to 01.06.2015 since section 200A was inserted only from that day. Thus for the period prior to 01.06.2015, respondents had no jurisdiction or authority to impose the late fee. The decision in M/s.Sarala Memorial Hospital's 2018 (12) TMI 1818 - KERALA HIGH COURT case has become final and binding. Since the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court was not considered by the Appellate Authority, Ext.P6, Ext.P7, Ext.P8 and Ext.P9 are perverse, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the judgment in M/s.Sarala Memorial Hospital's case 2018 (12) TMI 1818 - KERALA HIGH COURT declared that late fee under Section 234E cannot be imposed prior to 01.06.2015, no purpose will be served by sending the case back to the Tribunal. The levy of late fee is without authority and legally invalid.

Summary

Issues:
Late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the periods from 2012-13 to 2014-15; Jurisdiction and authority of respondents to impose late fee; Applicability of section 234E prior to 01.06.2015; Validity of appellate orders challenging the demands.

Analysis:
The petitioner was called upon to pay the late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the periods from 2012-13 to 2014-15. The demands were made based on the provisions of section 234E, which imposes a fee for default in furnishing statements. The petitioner contended that prior to 01.06.2015, he cannot be held liable to pay late fees for non-filing of tax deduction statements as section 200A was incorporated with effect from that date.

The respondents raised a contention that the petitioner had preferred appeals against the demands, which were dismissed. They argued that since statutory appeals were decided against the petitioner, he cannot challenge the demands under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner amended the writ petition to challenge the appellate orders as well.

In a similar case, the High Court had held that the amendment under section 234E would take effect only from 1st June, 2015, as section 200A was made effective from that date. The judgment in that case was final and binding, declaring that late fees under section 234E cannot be imposed prior to 01.06.2015. The Court noted that the appellate orders were perverse as they did not consider the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, warranting interference under Article 226.

Given the legal precedent and the lack of authority to impose late fees prior to 01.06.2015, the Court quashed the intimations demanding late fees for the period from 2012-13 till 01.06.2015. The writ petition was allowed accordingly, declaring the levy of late fees as without authority and legally invalid.