9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 462 - AT - Income TaxLevy late filing fees u/s 234E - Delay in filing the TDS returns - time of the filing of the TDS returns - whether it is a case of continued default even after the period starting 1.6.2015 empowering the Assessing officer to levy the fees under section 234E? - HELD THAT - TDS return (Form 24Q) for the 2nd quarter of financial year 2013-14 was filed by the assessee on 3.01.2015 and the same was processed and intimation under section 200A was issued on 01/01/2017. Similarly, in the second case, the TDS return (Form 24Q) for the 4th quarter of financial year 2013-14 was filed by the assessee on 02.01.2015 and the same was processed and intimation under section 200A was issued on 01/01/2017. We therefore find that though there has been a delay in filing these two TDS returns, however, in all these cases, the TDS return has been filed much before 1.6.2015 and none of the three cases involved a case of continuing default where the assessee has defaulted in furnishing the TDS statement even after 01.06.2015. Therefore, even though the AO assume jurisdiction to levy fee u/s 234E with effect from 1.6.2015 and has the necessary jurisdiction to levy fee u/s 234E in the instant case while processing the TDS returns on 1/01/2017, at the same time, such jurisdiction has been held prospective in nature and the period prior to 1/6/2015 has to be excluded. No basis for levy of fees under section 234E and the same is hereby directed to be deleted. Assessee appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals. 2. Imposition of fee under Section 234E. 3. Validity of notices under Section 200A for periods before 01.06.2015. 4. Applicability of Circular No. 19 of 2015. 5. Judicial precedence and adherence to higher court rulings. Summary: 1. Delay in Filing Appeals: The appeals were filed by the Assessee with a delay of one day. After considering the affidavit submitted by the assessee and the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the delay was condoned based on the Supreme Court's decision in "IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION" reported at 441 ITR 722 (SC). 2. Imposition of Fee under Section 234E: The Assessee contested the fee imposed under Section 234E for late filing of TDS returns. The Tribunal noted that the TDS returns for the relevant quarters were filed before 01.06.2015, and the fee under Section 234E was charged while processing the returns after the amendment to Section 200A effective from 01.06.2015. 3. Validity of Notices under Section 200A for Periods Before 01.06.2015: The Tribunal referred to the Karnataka High Court's judgment in "Fatheraj Singhvi & Others vs UOI" which held that the provisions of amended Section 200A are prospective in nature. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) was not empowered to levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015. 4. Applicability of Circular No. 19 of 2015: The Assessee argued that Circular No. 19 of 2015 dated 27.11.2015, which provides that the provisions of Section 200A for determining fees under Section 234E are applicable prospectively from 01.06.2015, was not followed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the AO could not levy fees for periods before 01.06.2015. 5. Judicial Precedence and Adherence to Higher Court Rulings: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of judicial discipline, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in "UOI vs Kamlakshi Finance Ltd" and the principle from "CIT vs Vegetable Products Ltd." that in case of conflicting decisions, the one in favor of the assessee should be followed. The Tribunal noted that there were no adverse decisions from the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the assessee on this issue. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the AO did not have the jurisdiction to levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015 and directed the deletion of the fees imposed in both cases. The appeals were allowed.
|
