9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 303 - HC - Income TaxLate fee under Section 234-E - intimation under Section 200A - petitioner submits that insofar as intimation under Section 200A, the petitioner had sought for rectification under Section 154 - section 264 proceedings initiated - HELD THAT - As in light of legal position arising from the judgment of this court in the case of FATHERAJ SINGHVI v. UNION OF INDIA 2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT the Department did not have any authority to seek computation of fee under Section 234E with respect to the period prior to 01.06.2016. Thus it would serve the interests of justice to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-'G' dated 07.03.2020. The delay as made out is condoned by taking note of the law laid down in the case of FATHERAJ SINGHVI (supra). That apart, it must be noticed that the Department has taken a conservative and hyper technical view, as regards limitation and accordingly the impugned order is set aside by condoning the delay.
Issues:
1. Challenge to intimation under Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. Late fee levied under Section 234-E of the Act 3. Rectification sought under Section 154 of the Act 4. Appeals before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 5. Proceedings under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act 6. Delay in initiating Section 264 proceedings 7. Legal position arising from the judgment in FATHERAJ SINGHVI v. UNION OF INDIA 8. Dispute over condonation of delay 9. Interpretation of Section 264 regarding time limit for filing proceedings 10. Contrary views in different High Court judgments Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the intimation under Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding late filing of e-TDS returns and levy of late fee under Section 234-E. The petitioner had initially sought rectification under Section 154 of the Act, leading to appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequently the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) pending Section 264 proceedings initiated by the petitioner. The delay in initiating these proceedings was a point of contention, with the petitioner arguing for condonation based on legal precedents such as the judgment in FATHERAJ SINGHVI v. UNION OF INDIA. 3. The revenue contended that the petitioner had not filed the Section 264 proceedings within the permitted one-year period, attributing the delay to the petitioner. However, the legal position from the FATHERAJ SINGHVI case was acknowledged, despite a contrary view in the High Court of Gujarat judgment in RAJESH KOURANI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. 4. The court, considering the legal precedents and the interests of justice, set aside the impugned order dated 07.03.2020, condoning the delay in the Section 264 proceedings. The Department's strict interpretation of limitation was criticized, and the matters were remitted back for proper disposal as per the law. 5. Both writ petitions were allowed, directing the respondent to proceed with the Section 264 proceedings within a specified timeline. The court emphasized the need for timely resolution of the matters in accordance with the legal procedures laid down.
|
