9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charge fees under section 234E - Therefore, the intimations issued by the AO under section 200A of the Act in these appeals are unsustainable and the demand raised by way of charging of the fees under section 234E of the Act not being valid is deleted. - we hold that the AO is not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act by way of intimations issued u/s 200A of the Act in respect of defaults before 01.06.2015 - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 4849 to 4851/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 29-11-2019 - SHRI S. RIFAUR REHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri a kesh Joshi, A.R For the Respondent : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e filing of the statement of tax deduction at source in Form No. 26QB‟ for A.Y. 2014-15. Resultantly, the ACIT, Central Processing CellTDS levied late filing fees under Sec. 234E of ₹ 49,556/- and also interest on late payment under Sec. 201 of ₹ 18562.50. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the imposition of late filing fees under Sec.234E, and also the levy of interest on late payment before the CIT(A). It was claimed by the assessee, that Sec. 200A (prior to its amendment w.e.f 01.06.2015) did not provide for levy of fee under Sec. 234E at the time of processing of the TDS statement. It was submitted by the assessee that the provisions of Sec.200A were amended only w.e.f 01.06.2015, so as to unable computation of fe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ec.234E could have been validly levied for two of the aforementioned years (out of three years), viz. A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16, as the same were relatable to the period prior to 01.06.2015. Insofar the third year was concerned, viz. A.Y. 201617, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that he was not pressing the levy of fee under Sec.234E for the said year. 5. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short D.R‟) relied on the order of the CIT(A). It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that as the date of filing of the statement and also the date of the intimation received from CPC, TDS were subsequent to 01.06.2015, therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly upheld the levy of fees under Sec.234E of the Act. 6. Admittedly, the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00A was without authority of law and the fees therein levied was liable to be deleted. Apart therefrom, we find that the issue involved in the appeal before us is also covered by an order of the ITAT, Amritsar in the case of Tata Rice Mills Vs. ACIT (CPC), TDS Ghaziabad (ITA No. 395/ASR/2016; dated 25.10.2017. In the aforementioned case, it was observed by the Tribunal that the assessee had filed its statement of tax deduction at source for the second quarter‟ relevant to Financial year 2014- 15 on 19th June, 2015, which was thereafter processed on 23.06.2015 by the ACITTDS, CPC and a late fee under Sec. 234E of ₹ 49,400/- was charged in the intimation issued under Sec. 200A of the I.T. Act. It was observed by the Tribunal that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or to 01.06.2015. Accordingly, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the CIT(A), who we find had sustained the levy of late filing fees under Sec. 234E of ₹ 49,556/- on the assessee. Resultantly, we set aside the late filing fee of ₹ 49,556/- levied under Sec.234E by the ACIT, Central Processing Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad. As regards the levy of interest of ₹ 18,562.50 on late payment under Sec. 201, we find that the ld. A.R had not raised any submissions as regards the same in the course of hearing of the appeal. Apparently, as the interest under Sec. 201 has been levied for the delay in depositing of the statutory dues by the assessee, therefore, finding no reason to dislodge the sustaining of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le under Sec.234E at the time of processing of the TDS statement. In sum and substance, it was the claim of the assessee that no fee under Sec.234E could be levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015. However, the aforesaid claim of the assessee did not find favour with the CIT(A). Observing, that even for the period prior to 01.06.2015, the charging of fee under Sec.234E was a part of the statute which called for a levy of fee for default in furnishing the statements, the CIT(A) rejected the aforesaid claim of the assessee. Also, taking cognizance of the fact, that the dates of filing of statement and also the intimation order received form CPC were subsequent to 01.06.2015, the CIT(A) did not find favour with the aforesaid claim of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
