9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessee and as per the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji others [ 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] delay should be condoned where there is no negligence. The Hon ble Apex Court has emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The Court has also explained that a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging the appeal late. The Court has also explained that every day s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken. Considering the reasons given by the Assessee for condonation of delay and keeping in mind that technicalities should not stand in the way of rendering substantive justice, we are o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per day during which the failure continues. Section 234E of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.7.2012. reads as follows:- Fee for default in furnishing statements. 234E. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C, he shall be liable to pay, by way of fee, a sum of two hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues. (2) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be. (3) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e computed on the basis of the sums deductible as computed in the statement; (c) the fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E; (d) the sum payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the deductor shall be determined after adjustment of the amount computed under clause (b) and clause (c) against any amount paid under section 200 or section 201 or section 234E and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest or fee; (e) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the deductor specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, him under clause (d); and (f) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TDS filed prior to 1.6.2015. The assessee, thus, challenged the validity of charging of fee u/s. 234E of the Act. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 wherein the Hon ble Karnataka High Court held that amendment made u/s. 200A providing that fee u/s. 234E of the Act could be computed at the time of processing of return and issue of intimation has come into effect only from 1.6.2015 and had only prospective effect and therefore, no computation of fee u/s.234E of the Act for delayed filing of return of TDS while processing a return of TDS u/s.234E of the Act could have been made for tax deducted at source for the assessment years prior to 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon ble Court has observed that if a tax deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received u/s.200A of the Act, he cannot take advantage of the decision and seek refund. The CIT(A) noticed that the intimations u/s.200A for levy of late fee u/s.234E of the Act were issued on the Assessee on 14.11.2013, 14.3.2014, 15.02.2014, 7.8.2014 , 19.6.2015, 14.6.2015 and 10.5.2016 respectively. He also observed that the Assessee has not paid the demand for late fee as per the aforesaid intimations. He observed that the Assessee still cannot take benefit of the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court because he has defied the provisions of law. This reason given by CIT(A) is unsustainable because the Hon ble High Court in its judgment only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 26.8.2016. It has been held by the ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of MSV IT Solutions Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward 16(4) ITA Nos. 177 178/Hyd/2018 order dated 26.10.2018 wherein on identical facts noticing that there was no legal remedy prior to 1.6.2015 against an intimation u/s.200A of the Act, the Hyderabad Bench condoned delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). The Assessee is not guilty of negligence and the delay was due to bonafide reasons set out above. The Assessee and as per the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji others AIR 1987 1353 (SC) delay should be condoned where there is no negligence. The Hon ble Apex Court has emphasized that substantial justice should pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
