Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (9) TMI 1619

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m Limited. [ 2021 (12) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] while deciding the powers of the Tribunal u/s 254(2). In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Limited cited [ 2021 (12) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] the only course available to the Revenue is to approach the higher forum against the order of the Tribunal. Three Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue are dismissed. - Shri R. K. Panda, Vice President And Ms Astha Chandra, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri CD Upasani V N Bangad For the Department : Shri B S Rajpurohit ORDER PER R. K. PANDA, VP : The Revenue through these three Miscellaneous Applications has requested the Tribunal to rectify the order passed by it allowin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the default committed after 01/06/2015 and not prior to that. No fee u/s 234E can be imposed for the periods of the respective A. Ys prior to June 1, 2015. Thus, it is seen that the issue raised in these appeals is covered in favour of the assessee. Following the precedent, we overturn the impugned orders on this sole issue. 2. In result, all the appeals are allowed. Brief facts of the case : a) The assessee (deductor) is a Company. The deductor had filed quarterly TDS statements belatedly for the F.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. Therefore, the DCIT (TDS-CPC) levied Late Filing Fees u/s 234E of the Act of Rs. 2,11,930/-, Rs. 2,73,983/- and Rs. 1,38,816/- for F.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14 2014-15 resp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others (2022) 440 ITR 26 (Kerala) (ii) Jiji Varghese Vs. ITO (TDS) Ors. (2022) 443 ITR 267 (Ker) 04. It is seen that the appeal filed before the CIT (A) has been dismissed on the ground that it has been filed against an intimation of demand which is not appealable order mentioned u/s 246A. However, this issue was not discussed by the Hon'ble ITAT, which was to be decided before considering the appeal on merits, as this issue involved maintainability of appeal filed before the ITAT. Thus, it is hereby submitted with respect that the Hon'ble ITAT Pune has made an error while deciding the order in favor of assessee for the F.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 2015-16. 05. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue should be dismissed. 5. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides. We find the assessee in the instant case, filed appeal against the intimation by the CPC challenging the levy of interest u/s 234E of the Act which was dismissed by the CIT(A) / NFAC on the ground that the intimation of outstanding demand is not an appealable order mentioned u/s 246A of the Act. We find when the assessee challenged the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC before the Tribunal on the ground that the provisions of section 234E of the Act are not applicable to the period prior to 01.06.2015, the Tribunal in the consolidated order deleted such interest levied u/s 234E of the Act. Against this order of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erest levied u/s 234E of the Act has relied on various decisions of Hon ble High Courts. 8. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Limited (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) while deciding the powers of the Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the Act has held as under: 6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors Section 254(2) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates