9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1587 - AT - Income TaxLevy of late filing fees u/s 234E while issuing intimation u/s 200A - scope of amendment to section 200A - Held that - In the present bunch of appeals is identical to the issue raised before the Tribunal in different bunches of appeals and since the amendment to section 200A of the Act was prospective in nature, the Assessing Officer while processing TDS returns / statements for the period prior to 01.06.2015 was not empowered to charge late filing fees under section 234E of the Act, even in cases where such TDS returns were filed belatedly after June, 2015 and even in cases where the Assessing Officer processed the said TDS returns after June, 2015. Accordingly, we hold that intimation issued by Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all the appeals does not stand and the demand raised by charging late filing fees under section 234E of the Act is not valid and the same is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of intimation issued under section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Prospective vs. retrospective application of the amendment to section 200A. 4. Dismissal of appeals due to delay in filing. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Levy of Late Filing Fees under Section 234E: The primary issue in these appeals is the levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had furnished TDS returns for different quarters for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. Late filing fees were charged under section 234E for defaults in different quarters. The CIT(A) upheld the levy of late fees, noting that the deductor was responsible for delivering TDS statements within the prescribed time. The Legislature introduced section 234E to provide effective deterrence, allowing a levy of fees at ?200 per day for delays. The CIT(A) observed that the CPC, TDS levied late fees under section 234E r.w.s. 200A(1) for delayed filings. 2. Validity of Intimation Issued under Section 200A: The Tribunal addressed whether the Assessing Officer was empowered to levy late filing fees under section 234E while issuing intimation under section 200A for periods prior to 01.06.2015. The Tribunal referred to its previous decisions and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka's ruling in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India, which held that the amendment to section 200A of the Act w.e.f. 01.06.2015 was prospective. Therefore, for periods prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E while issuing intimation under section 200A. 3. Prospective vs. Retrospective Application of the Amendment to Section 200A: The Tribunal noted that the amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act, which allowed for the levy of late filing fees under section 234E, was prospective and not retrospective. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India clarified that the amendment was prospective, and any demand for fees under section 234E for periods before 01.06.2015 was invalid. The Tribunal followed this ruling, stating that even if TDS returns were filed or processed after 01.06.2015, the fees could not be levied for periods prior to this date. 4. Dismissal of Appeals Due to Delay in Filing: In the case of Junagade Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals as being delayed. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in computing the period for filing appeals. The appeals were against the order passed under section 154, not the original intimation. The Tribunal held that the time period for filing appeals should be computed from the date of the order under section 154, not from the date of the intimation. The Tribunal also referred to a similar decision in Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital Vs. ACIT, where it was held that the appeals were wrongly dismissed as delayed. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to levy late filing fees under section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015 while issuing intimation under section 200A. The appeals were allowed, and the late filing fees charged were deleted. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals of Junagade Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. as delayed and directed that the appeals be considered on merits. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that the amendment to section 200A was prospective and should be applied accordingly.
|
