2022 (6) TMI 260 - AT - Income Tax

Late filing levied u/s 234E - Intimation u/s 200A - assessee stated that delay in filing TDS return was due to error in mentioning TAN in the TDS challan and since the tax deducted by the assessee is deposited within stipulated date, there was no delay in depositing TDS, and therefore there was no loss to the revenue - HELD THAT - We note that the issue under consideration is directly covered against the assessee in the case of Rajesh Kourani v. Union of India 2017 (7) TMI 458 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT wherein the Gujarat High Court held even for TDS statements which have been filed prior to 01.06.2015, late filing fee can be levied u/s 234E of the Act, since s. 234E of the Act is a charging section and s. 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing mechanism for processing a TDS statement and under no circumstances a machinery provision can override or overrule a charging provision. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that even in absence of section 200A of the Act i.e. the machinery provision, with the introduction of section 234E (being the charging provision- inserted w.e.f. 1- 7-2012), it was always open for the Revenue to demand and collect the fee for late filing of the TDS statements u/s 234E of the Act w.e.f. 01-07-2012. Appeal of assessee dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act prior to 01/06/2015.
2. Consequence of failure of TDS consultant in complying with TDS provisions.
3. Justification for levying fees and interest in the case of delay in filing TDS returns.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act prior to 01/06/2015:
The appeal was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the levy of late filing fees u/s 234E for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee argued that prior to 01/06/2015, there was no provision enabling the demand for late filing fees u/s 234E. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, citing a Gujarat High Court judgment that upheld the charging provision of section 234E, allowing the levy of fees even without a machinery provision like section 200A. The tribunal concurred with this decision, emphasizing that a charging provision like section 234E can stand alone without being dependent on a machinery provision like section 200A. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed based on the precedent set by the Gujarat High Court.

Issue 2: Consequence of failure of TDS consultant in complying with TDS provisions:
The appellant argued that the delay in filing the TDS return was due to an error in mentioning TAN in the TDS challan, and since the tax was deposited within the stipulated date, there was no loss to the revenue. However, the tribunal held that the reason for the delay was not relevant as the charging provision of section 234E allowed for the levy of late filing fees irrespective of the reason for the delay. The tribunal emphasized that the charging provision of section 234E stands independently and does not require a specific reason for the delay to be applicable.

Issue 3: Justification for levying fees and interest in the case of delay in filing TDS returns:
The appellant contended that the fees and interest levied were unwarranted and caused undue hardship as there was no loss to the revenue or adverse consequences due to the delay in filing TDS returns. However, the tribunal reiterated that the charging provision of section 234E allowed for the levy of fees for late filing of TDS returns, irrespective of any loss to the revenue or adverse consequences. The tribunal upheld the decision based on the Gujarat High Court judgment, emphasizing the independent applicability of the charging provision.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the Gujarat High Court judgment, which established the independent applicability of the charging provision of section 234E for the levy of late filing fees, regardless of the presence of a machinery provision like section 200A.