9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 406 - AT - Income TaxLevy of fees u/s 234E - default in furnishing statement u/s 200(3) - HELD THAT - As in respect of any assessment year the levy of fees for delayed filing of TDS statement can only be permissible where such statement is filed after 31st May, 2015. Undisputedly, in the present case, the regular TDS statement was first filed much before aforestated deadline of 31st May 2015, however the AO processed the statement and unlawfully levied the fees u/s 234E for delayed furnishing in the absence of enabling provision of section 200A(1)(c) - Such levy in the light of aforestated discussion suffers from infirmity and bad in law in the light of decision in Fatheraj Singhvi Ors Vs UOI 2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ergo we delete the levy - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of authorisation of levy of fees u/s 234E for default in furnishing statement u/s 200(3) in the absence of enabling provision. Adjudication of the issue: The judgment pertains to a bunch of appeals by different assessees challenging the levy of late filing fees u/s 234E for default in furnishing TDS statements within the specified time limit under section 200(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The enabling provision for the levy of fees u/s 234E came into force w.e.f. 1st June, 2015, through section 200A(1)(c) by Finance Act, 2015. The tribunal held that any levy of fees for default prior to this provision is unsustainable in the eyes of the law. The judgment cited the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in "Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors Vs UOI" and deleted the levy of fees as it was done in the absence of the necessary enabling provision. Decision and Outcome: The tribunal heard the contentions of both parties and found that the initial TDS statements for the respective quarters were filed before the deadline of 31st May, 2015. As there were no contrary facts brought to their notice, all the appeals were allowed, and the levy of fees u/s 234E was deleted. The judgment resulted in the success of all four appeals by different assessees.
|
