2023 (2) TMI 433 - AT - Income Tax

Rectifiction u/s 154 - Levy of late filing fees u/s 234E - intimation issued u/s 200A - interest thereupon levied u/s 220(2) - HELD THAT - Merely because, the Assessing Officer while accepting the request of the assessee in giving details of the up-to-date due late filing fee along with interest, that, in any way, cannot be said to be the rectification or amendment of the original order of 2015, nor any prejudiced can be said to have been caused to the assessee. Merely, giving the statement of the exact amount due to the assessee, that too, at the request of the assessee, is just the calculation provided by the AO and the assessee, in this respect, can agitate only if the assessee is aggrieved by the aforesaid calculation given by the AO. The assessee in the process of requesting and taking calculation of interest due cannot be said to have acquired any cause of action or right to challenge the original order passed u/s 200A - The assessee has not pointed out as to what mistake has occurred in the order passed u/s 154 of the Act as compared to the original order passed u/s 200A of the Act. In fact, no mistake apparent on record, has been alleged in the said order by the assessee itself in its correction statement/request. There is no dispute relating to the aforesaid proposition. If the assessee is aggrieved by an order passed u/s 154 of the Act he will be entitled to file appeal against the said order. Assessee must bring out from the record as to what prejudice has been caused to the assessee in the order passed u/s 154 of the Act when compared with the original order which has been amended or rectified. Neither any rectification has been done by the AO to the original order nor any cause of action has accrued to the assessee by getting up-to-date calculation of the demand. In view of this, there is no merit in the appeal of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act along with interest u/s 220(2) of the Act. Interpretation of section 200A of the Act regarding the levy of fees u/s 234E prior to 01.06.2015. Comparison of decisions from different High Courts on the retrospective application of section 200A. Dispute between the machinery provision of section 200A and charging provision of section 234E. Appeal against the order passed u/s 154 of the Act and condonation of delay in filing appeals against original orders of 2015.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the Assessee-Bank challenging the orders of the CIT(A) dismissing their appeals against the TDS CPS Centre orders. The issue revolved around the levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of the Act and interest u/s 220(2) of the Act. The Assessee filed TDS returns belatedly, leading to the demand for late filing fees. The controversy stemmed from the interpretation of section 200A of the Act, specifically regarding the retrospective application of the provision for computing fees u/s 234E. The Assessee relied on the Karnataka High Court's decision, arguing that the amendment to section 200A was prospective from 01.06.2015, and demands prior to this date were not valid.

The Assessee also cited the Kerala High Court's decision and Tribunal benches following the Karnataka High Court's ruling. However, the Revenue relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision, emphasizing that section 200A is a machinery provision and section 234E is a charging provision, allowing the levy of fees without a specific provision in section 200A. The Tribunal analyzed the contentions, noting that the Assessee did not challenge the original orders passed u/s 200A of the Act in 2015. The Assessee's 2021 correction request for the exact amount due did not equate to challenging the original orders or rectification under section 154 of the Act.

The Tribunal highlighted that no appeal was filed against the demand raised u/s 234E in 2015, and the correction statement did not challenge the validity of the late filing fees. The Tribunal rejected the Assessee's argument that delay was due to non-receipt of original orders and directed the Assessee to explain any delay in future appeals. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that the Assessee failed to demonstrate prejudice caused by the orders passed u/s 154 of the Act. The Tribunal allowed time consumed in the current litigation not to count towards the limitation period for filing appeals against the original orders of 2015, subject to explanations for the remaining delay.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals, considering the identical circumstances in each case and the lack of merit in the Assessee's contentions. The judgment addressed the issues of challenging the levy of late filing fees, interpretation of section 200A, comparison of different High Court decisions, the interplay between machinery and charging provisions, appeal against section 154 orders, and condonation of delay in filing appeals against original orders of 2015.