9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttle Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [ 2022 (2) TMI 1061 - KERALAHIGH COURT] has held that since provision of section 200A was amended to enable computation of fee payable u/s 234E at the time of processing of return and said amendment came into effect from 01.06.2015 (in view of CBDT Circular No.19 of 2015 dated 17.11.2015) intimations issued u/s 200A of the I.T.Act dealing with fee for belated filing of TDS returns for the period prior to 01.06.2015 were invalid and were to be set aside. In the instant case, the assessee submits that he was advised that there is no appeal remedy for late fee u/s 234E of the I.T.Act. It is further stated that the decision in the case of Sri Fateharaj Singhvi v. Union of India Ors. [ 2016 (9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condoned such delay in the matter of 234E. 3. The CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the late fees under 234E on the basis of non jurisdictional High Court decisions ignoring the decisions of other High Courts. 4. The CIT(Appeals) has overlooked many decisions in which the levy of late fees has been deleted by appellate authorities. 5. For these and other grounds that may be raised at the time of hearing the late fees together with interest charged may kindly be deleted. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee had filed belatedly TDS statements in Form No.24Q and 26Q for various quarters for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. The statements were processed by the Assessing Officer vide ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT(A). As regards the issue on merits, the learned AR submitted that the same is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 440 ITR 26 (Ker.). 6. The learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. 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 levyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court in the case of Shri Rajesh Kourani v. Union of India (supra) and distinguished the same. The Hon ble Kerala High Court had disposed of the Writ Petition in favour of the assessee, stating that there is cleavage in judicial opinion and the judgment in the case of Shri Rajesh Kourani v. Union of India (supra) has not considered CBDT Circular No.19 of 2015, which has clearly emphasized that the amendment would take effect only from 01.06.2016. Therefore, it was concluded by the Hon ble Kerala High Court that the amendment relating to section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. 7.1 As regards the condonation of delay is concerned, it is admitted that there is a delay of approximately five years in filing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. 7.3 The Hon ble Apex Court further observed that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek the remedy promptly. The Hon ble Court further observed that refusal to condone the delay would result in foreclosing a suitor for putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate. 7.4 The Hon ble Apex C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s further held by the Hon ble Apex Court that unless the malafides are writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. 7.6 In the instant case, the assessee submits that he was advised that there is no appeal remedy for late fee u/s 234E of the I.T.Act. It is further stated that the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri Fateharaj Singhvi v. Union of India Ors. reported in 289 CTR 602 (Kar.), declaring that late fee u/s 234E was bad in law came to the notice of the assessee only in September 2018. The pleae of the assessee that downloading of the intimation and filing an appeal for which he has received legal advise that it is not appealable order cannot be totally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
