9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 407 - AT - Income TaxLevy of fees u/s 234E for non filing of TDS statement in form 26Q/quarter 2 - intimation u/s 200A - Scope of amendment was made u/s 200A providing the changing mechanism for levy of late fees u/s 234E as inserted w.e.f. 1.6.201 - HELD THAT - The CPC (TDS) had levied penalty u/s 234E of the Act for belated submission of tax deducted at source statement during the financial year 2012-13. It is only w.e.f. 01.06.2015 an amendment was made u/s 200A of the Act providing that fee u/s 234E could be computed at the time of processing of the return of income and intimation could be issued specifying the same payable by the deductor as fee u/s 234E of the Act. The Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi 2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT held that the provisions of section 234E of the Act are substantive in nature and the mechanism for computing the late fee was provided by the Parliament only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Therefore, late fees u/s 234E of the Act can be levied only prospectively w.e.f. 01.06.2015 - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Levy of late fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The appellant received an intimation under section 200A dated 26.12.2013 from the ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad, for the assessment year 2013-14, levying a late fee under section 234E for the delay in submitting TDS returns. The appellant filed an appeal with a delay before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who did not condone the delay, citing insufficient and unreasonable cause for the delay. During the hearing, it was submitted that the provisions of section 200A were inserted only w.e.f. 1.6.2015 by the Finance Act, 2015, and no late fee under section 234E could be levied prior to this insertion. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay as sufficient cause was shown. The Revenue had no serious objection to the condonation of delay. The Tribunal referred to the principles laid out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, which emphasized that refusing to condone delay could result in a meritorious matter being thrown out and cause of justice being defeated. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT also held that an overall view in the larger interest of justice should be taken in matters of condonation of delay. Applying these principles, the Tribunal found that the appellant had a strong case on merits and the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeal on merits. 2. Levy of Late Fees under Section 234E: The only issue in the present appeal was the levy of late fees under section 234E of the Act. The CPC (TDS) had levied a penalty under section 234E for the belated submission of tax deducted at source statement during the financial year 2012-13. It was only w.e.f. 01.06.2015 that an amendment was made under section 200A of the Act, providing that fees under section 234E could be computed at the time of processing the return of income. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India, which held that the provisions of section 234E are substantive in nature and the mechanism for computing the late fee was provided by the Parliament only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Therefore, late fees under section 234E could be levied only prospectively from 01.06.2015. The Tribunal also referred to similar decisions by the Coordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the cases of Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT and Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune vs. DCIT, which followed the same ratio. The Tribunal concluded that the late fees under section 234E could not be levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad, to delete the late fee levied under section 234E of the Act. Conclusion: In light of the above findings, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14. Since the facts and issues involved in the remaining sixteen appeals were identical, the Tribunal's decision in ITA No.1201/PUN/2019 for the assessment year 2013-14 applied mutatis mutandis to the remaining appeals. Consequently, all seventeen appeals filed by the assessee were allowed. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced on the 31st day of May, 2022.
|
