9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 671 - AT - Income TaxLevy of late filing fee u/s 234E against the order passed u/s 200A - scope of amendment to section 200A(1) - Held that - Following the referred decision in the case of Gajanan Constructions and others 2016 (11) TMI 1247 - ITAT PUNE we hold that the amendment to section 200A(1) is prospective in nature and therefore the AO, while processing the TDS statements/returns in the present appeal for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Therefore the intimations issued by the AO under section 200A of the Act in this appeal are unsustainable and the demand raised by way of charging of the fees under section 234E of the Act not being valid is deleted. AO is not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act by way of intimation issued under section 200A of the Act in respect of defaults before 01.06.2015 and consequently allow the ground of appeal raised by the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of late filing fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Power of the Assessing Officer to charge/collect fees under Section 234E before the amendment to Section 200A of the Act effective from 01/06/2015. 3. Maintainability of appeal against intimation issued under Section 200A of the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Levy of Late Filing Fee under Section 234E: The assessee challenged the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E for various assessment years, arguing that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not have the authority to levy such fees prior to the amendment of Section 200A effective from 01/06/2015. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Sections 200A and 234E of the Act. Section 200A deals with the processing of statements of tax deducted at source (TDS), while Section 234E imposes a fee for default in furnishing TDS statements. The Tribunal noted that the power to levy fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements was only granted to the AO with the amendment to Section 200A effective from 01/06/2015. Prior to this amendment, the AO could not levy such fees. 2. Power of the Assessing Officer to Charge/Collect Fees: The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Pune Bench in the case of Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT, which concluded that the AO could not levy fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements before 01/06/2015. The Tribunal agreed with this view, emphasizing that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective and not retrospective. The Tribunal also considered the decisions of various High Courts, including the Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia vs. UOI, which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 234E but did not address the applicability of the section before the amendment. The Tribunal held that the AO did not have the authority to levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to 01/06/2015. 3. Maintainability of Appeal Against Intimation Issued under Section 200A: The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether an appeal is maintainable against an intimation issued under Section 200A of the Act. The Tribunal referred to the Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 2015, which recognized that an intimation generated after processing TDS statements is subject to rectification under Section 154, appealable under Section 246A, and deemed as a notice of payment under Section 156 of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that such intimation is indeed appealable, reversing the findings of the CIT(A) that no appeal is maintainable. The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee is maintainable and allowed the appeal on both the preliminary issue of maintainability and the substantive issue of the levy of fees under Section 234E. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee, holding that the AO was not empowered to levy fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements for periods prior to 01/06/2015. The Tribunal also held that the intimation issued under Section 200A is appealable, thus reversing the CIT(A)'s findings on the maintainability of the appeal. The demand raised by the AO by charging fees under Section 234E was deleted, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the assessee.
|
