9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee relate to TDS returns filed prior to 1.6.2015 and therefore levy of interest u/s.234E of the Act would not be valid, following the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court. It is no doubt true that three Hon ble High Courts of Gujarat and Kerala have taken a view contrary to the view taken by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi (supra). If there is conflicting views rendered by different High Courts, the view taken by the jurisdictional High Court is binding in the jurisdictional area of the respective High Court. See Subramaniam -vs.- Siemens India Ltd. [ 1983 (4) TMI 3 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] The Court further added that in cases where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NT This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 21.11.2022 relating to assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee filed statement of tax deducted at source (TDS) for various quarters in Form No.26Q for Quarter 4 of AY 2013-14 FY 2012-13. The statement was processed by the respondent. There was a delay in filing the above TDS statement and therefore the AO by intimation u/s. 200A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [ the Act ] dated 7.9.2013 levied late fee u/s. 234E of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [ the Act ]. Under Sec.234E of the Act, if there is a delay in filing statement of TDS within the prescribed time then the person responsible for making payment and filing return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... serted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.7.2012. Section 200A of the Act is a provision which deals with how a return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act has to be processed and it reads as follows:- Processing of statements of tax deducted at source . 200A. (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source or a correction statement has been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 200, such statement shall be processed in the following manner, namely: ( a ) the sums deductible under this Chapter shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely: ( i ) any arithmetical error in the statement; or ( ii ) an incorrect claim, apparent from any informati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statements under sub-section (1), the Board may make a scheme for centralised processing of statements of tax deducted at source to expeditiously determine the tax payable by, or the refund due to, the deductor as required under the said subsection. 4. Clause (c) to (f) of section 200A(1) was substituted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. The assessee contended before NFAC (CIT(A)/first appellate authority) that AO could levy fee u/s.234E of the Act while processing a return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act only by virtue of the provisions of Sec.200A(1)(c), (d) (f) of the Act and those provisions came into force only from 1.6.2015 and therefore the authority issuing intimation u/s. 200A of the Act while processing return of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that even in the absence of Sec.200A of the Act with introduction of Sec.234E of the Act it was always open to the revenue to demand and collect fee for late filing of statement of TDS and that Sec.200A merely regulates the manner in which the computation of such fee would be made and demand raised. The NFAC/CIT(A) therefore upheld the levy of interest u/s.234E of the Act on the ground that if return of TDS is filed after 1.6.2015, then levy of interest u/s.234-E is valid. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the NFAC /CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeals before the Tribunal. We have heard the submission of the learned counsel for the Assessee who submitted that the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court being the decision of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts, the ITO must take the view which is in favour of the assessee and not against him. In CIT - vs.- Sunil Kumar (1996) 212 ITR 238 (Raj.) it was held that the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Income tax Authorities and the Tribunal within the jurisdiction of the Court and the contrary decision of another High Court is not relevant, and that a point decided by the Jurisdictional High Court can no longer be considered to be a debatable issue. In Baradakanta Mishra -vs.- Bhimsen Dixit AIR 1972 SC 2466 it was held as follows: It would be anomalous to suggest that a Tribunal over which the High Court has superintendence can ignore the law declared by tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
