2023 (2) TMI 567 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - Levy of late filing fees u/s 234E - Intimation u/s 200A - HELD THAT - As decided in assessee own case 2023 (2) TMI 433 - ITAT PATNA and 2023 (2) TMI 471 - ITAT PATNA 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 Assessing Officer and the assessee, in this respect, can agitate only if the assessee is aggrieved by the aforesaid calculation given by the Assessing Officer. 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 dated 27.04.2015 passed u/s 200A of the Act. 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 dated 27.04.2015 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. 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. However, the 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 Assessing Officer 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.

Issues:
1. Levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act along with interest u/s 220(2) of the Act.
2. Interpretation of the amendment in section 200A of the Act regarding the computation of fees u/s 234E.
3. Dispute over the retrospective application of the amendment to section 200A of the Act.
4. Validity of the demand raised u/s 234E of the Act prior to 01.06.2015.
5. Challenge against the original orders passed u/s 200A of the Act.
6. Condonation of delay in filing appeals against the original orders of 2015.
7. Applicability of the decisions of the Coordinate Benches in similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the Assessee-Bank against the orders of the CIT(A) dismissing appeals against the TDS CPS Centre's orders under section 154 of the Act. 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 due to delayed filing of TDS statements.
2. The amendment to section 200A of the Act, specifically clause (c), was a focal point. The Assessee argued that the amendment was prospective from 01.06.2015, citing the Karnataka High Court's decision in "Fatehraj Singhvi vs. Union of India." The Kerala High Court's decision in "M/s Sarala Memorial Hospital vs. Union of India" and Tribunal decisions were also referenced.
3. The dispute arose regarding the retrospective application of the amendment to section 200A, with the Assessee relying on judicial precedents to support their position.
4. The Assessee contended that demands raised u/s 234E of the Act before 01.06.2015 were invalid due to the absence of enabling provisions in section 200A.
5. The Assessee did not challenge the original orders passed u/s 200A of the Act within the stipulated time frame, leading to the dismissal of the appeals against those orders.
6. The Assessee sought condonation of delay in filing appeals against the original orders of 2015, which was not accepted by the tribunal.
7. The decisions of the Coordinate Benches in similar cases were followed, leading to the dismissal of the Assessee's appeals based on the identical nature of facts and issues involved in the present bunch of appeals.

← Previous Next →