9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, for the relevant assessment years, namely, A.Ys 2013-2014, 2014- 2015 and 2015-2016, the levy of tax u/s 234E of the Act is impermissible going by the dictum laid down by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sri Fateharaj Singhvi v. Union of India Ors. (supra).We deem it appropriate to remit the issue of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act through intimation u/s 200A of the Act to the file of the CIT(A) (since the CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits). Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 519 to 528/Bang/2021 - - - Dated:- 30-12-2021 - Shri George George K, JM And Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM For the Appellant : Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi For the Respondent : Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR ORDER PER BENCH : These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against ten orders of the CIT(A), all dated 09.09.2021 (except for ITA No.519/Bang/2021, where the impugned order of the CIT(A) is dated 23.09.2021). The orders of the CIT(A) arise out of orders of CPC, TDS, passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment years are 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. 2. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis of above grounds and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing with the consent of the Honourable Tribunal, it is prayed that the order passed under section 250, to the extent it is against the appellant, be quashed and relief sought be granted. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee filed belatedly the TDS statements in Form 24Q and 26Q for various quarters for assessment years 2013- 2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. The statements were processed by the Assessing Officer vide orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, wherein fee u/s 234E of the Act was levied for late filing of TDS statements. The details of levy u/s 234E of the Act, the period for which the levy was made, are detailed as under:- Assessment Year Net payable (in Rs.) 2013-2014 26Q2 14,719 2013-2014 26Q3 9,757 2013-2014 26Q4 17,516 2013-2014 24Q2 52,480 2014-2015 26Q1 3,230 2014-2015 26Q2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmissions and perused the material on record. The issue on merits, namely, the levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act through an intimation u/s 200A of the Act for the period prior to 01.06.2015 has been decided in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India Ors. (supra). The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, two aspects may transpire one, for section 234E providing for fee and given privilege to the defaulter if he pays the fee and hence, when a privilege is given for a particular purpose which in the present case is to come out from rigors of penal provision of section 271H(1)(a), it cannot be said that the provisions of fee since creates a counter benefit or reciprocal benefit in favour of the defaulter in the rigors of the penal provision, the provisions of section 234E would meet with the test of quid pro quo. However, if section 234E providing for fee was brought on the state book, keeping in view the aforesaid purpose and the intention then, the other mechanism provided for computation of fee and failure fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under section 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective assessment year prior to 1-6-2015. 7.1 The Assessing Officer cannot make any adjustment other than one prescribed in section 200A of the Act. Prior to 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in section 200A of the Act for making adjustment in respect of statement filed by the assessee with regard to tax deducted at source by levying fees u/s 234E of the Act. The Parliament for the first time enabled the Assessing Officer to make adjustment by levying fees u/s 234E of the Act with effect from 01.06.2015. The Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sri Fateharaj Singhvi v. Union of India Ors. (supra), has held that adjustment cannot be made by the A.O. for the respective assessment year prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, for the relevant assessment years, namely, A.Ys 2013-2014, 2014- 2015 and 2015-2016, the levy of tax u/s 234E of the Act is impermissible going by the dictum laid down by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sri Fateharaj Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e explained does not imply a pedantic approach. The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administrated in an evenhanded manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. 7.5 The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2395 of 2008 (judgment dated 9th June, 2010) had held that ordinarily the matter should be disposed of on merits and not on technicality. It was held by the Hon ble Apex Court that justice can be done only when the matter is fought on merits and in accordance with law rather than to dispose it on technicalities and that too at the threshold. It was further held by the Hon ble Apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
