Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: HONBLE KUL BHARAT & HONBLE MANISH BORAD
अपील�य अ�धकरण, इ�दौर �यायपीठ, इ�दौर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE
BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 M/s Madhya Pradesh Today Media Ltd, Plot No.5, Press Complex, Zon3-1, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal TAN: BPLM08815C/PAN AAGCM9822K Assessment Year 2013-14 (24 Q-II, Q-III, Q-IV, 26 Q-II, Q-III, & Q-IV ) : Appellant V/s ITO (TDS)-I, Indore : Respondent
Appellant by S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, CAs Respondent by Shri R.S. Ambedkar, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing: 23.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 24 .11.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH:
ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd The above captioned 6 appeals are at the instance of assessee
and is directed against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income
Tax(Appeals)-I, Indore (in short ‘CIT(A)’)dated 06.03.2019.
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
ITA No.574/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2012-13 (24 Qtr-II)
1.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in upholding the levying of fee at Rs.75,000/-- under s.234E and charging of interest under s. 220(2) at Rs.27,750/- of the Act thereon through an Order under s.200A of the Act without considering the material fact that in an Order passed under s.200A, the levy of fee under s.234E was not permissible at the relevant time as the necessary amendment has been brought in the statute by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01-06-2015 only.
2.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating the legal position that in absence of provisions of clauses (c) to (f) inserted in sub- section (1) of section 200A of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1-6- 2015, there was neither any authority, for the revenue, to collect any fees as provided under s.234E of the Act nor there was any right available to an assessee to prefer an appeal against charging of such levy. The Id. CIT(A) ought to have considered that having admitted the appeal of the assessee under s.246A(1)(a) of the Act, he had impliedly accepted the position that power to levy fees under s.234E of the Act got emanated from the provisions of s.200A of the Act.
3.That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the legal position that under the provisions of section 234E
ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd of the Act, the fees was compulsorily required to be collectible from the deductor before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with provisions of sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Act and no authority has been vested with the revenue authorities to collect any fees under s.234E of the Act after having been allowed an assessee to deliver his statement.
4.That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the material fact that there was a reasonable cause for the appellant, for late submission of TDS statements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, no late fee under s.234E was leviable.
5.That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary.
ITA No.575/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2012-13 (24 Qtr-III)
That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in upholding the levying of fee at Rs.70,600/-- under s.234E and charging of interest under s. 220(2) at Rs.26,122/- of the Act thereon through an Order under s.200A of the Act without considering the material fact that in an Order passed under s.200A, the levy of fee under s.234E was not permissible at the relevant time as the necessary amendment has been brought in the statute by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01-06-2015 only.
2.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating the legal position that in absence of provisions of clauses (c) to (f) inserted in sub- section (1) of section 200A of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1-6- 2015, there was neither any authority, for the revenue, to collect any fees
ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd as provided under s.234E of the Act nor there was any right available to an assessee to prefer an appeal against charging of such levy. The Id. CIT(A) ought to have considered that having admitted the appeal of the assessee under s.246A(1)(a) of the Act, he had impliedly accepted the position that power to levy fees under s.234E of the Act got emanated from the provisions of s.200A of the Act.
3.That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the legal position that under the provisions of section 234E of the Act, the fees was compulsorily required to be collectible from the deductor before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with provisions of sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Act and no authority has been vested with the revenue authorities to collect any fees under s.234E of the Act after having been allowed an assessee to deliver his statement.
4.That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the material fact that there was a reasonable cause for the appellant, for late submission of TDS statements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, no late fee under s.234E was leviable.
5.That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary.
ITA No.576/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2012-13 (24 Qtr-IV)
1.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in upholding the levying of fee at Rs.46,600/-- under s.234E and charging of interest under s. 220(2) at Rs.17,242/- of the Act thereon through an Order
ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd under s.200A of the Act without considering the material fact that in an Order passed under s.200A, the levy of fee under s.234E was not permissible at the relevant time as the necessary amendment has been brought in the statute by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01-06-2015 only.
That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating the legal position that in absence of provisions of clauses (c) to (f) inserted in sub- section (1) of section 200A of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1-6- 2015, there was neither any authority, for the revenue, to collect any fees as provided under s.234E of the Act nor there was any right available to an assessee to prefer an appeal against charging of such levy. The Id. CIT(A) ought to have considered that having admitted the appeal of the assessee under s.246A(1)(a) of the Act, he had impliedly accepted the position that power to levy fees under s.234E of the Act got emanated from the provisions of s.200A of the Act.
3.That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the legal position that under the provisions of section 234E of the Act, the fees was compulsorily required to be collectible from the deductor before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with provisions of sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Act and no authority has been vested with the revenue authorities to collect any fees under s.234E of the Act after having been allowed an assessee to deliver his statement.
4.That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the material fact that there was a reasonable cause for the appellant, for late submission of TDS statements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, no late fee under s.234E was leviable.
5.That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any
ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary. ITA No.578/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2012-13 (26 Qtr-III)
1.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in upholding the levying of fee at Rs.70,600/-- under s.234E and charging of interest under s. 220(2) at Rs.26,775/- of the Act thereon through an Order under s.200A of the Act without considering the material fact that in an Order passed under s.200A, the levy of fee under s.234E was not permissible at the relevant time as the necessary amendment has been brought in the statute by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01-06-2015 only.
2.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating the legal position that in absence of provisions of clauses (c) to (f) inserted in sub- section (1) of section 200A of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1-6- 2015, there was neither any authority, for the revenue, to collect any fees as provided under s.234E of the Act nor there was any right available to an assessee to prefer an appeal against charging of such levy. The Id. CIT(A) ought to have considered that having admitted the appeal of the assessee under s.246A(1)(a) of the Act, he had impliedly accepted the position that power to levy fees under s.234E of the Act got emanated from the provisions of s.200A of the Act.
That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the legal position that under the provisions of section 234E of the Act, the fees was compulsorily required to be collectible from the deductor before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with provisions of sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Act and no authority has been vested with the revenue authorities to collect any fees under s.234E of the Act after having been allowed an assessee to deliver his statement.
ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd 4.That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the material fact that there was a reasonable cause for the appellant, for late submission of TDS statements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, no late fee under s.234E was leviable.
5.That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary. ITA No.579/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2012-13 (26 Qtr-IV)
1.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in upholding the levying of fee at Rs.46,600/-- under s.234E and charging of interest under s. 220(2) at Rs.17,242/- of the Act thereon through an Order under s.200A of the Act without considering the material fact that in an Order passed under s.200A, the levy of fee under s.234E was not permissible at the relevant time as the necessary amendment has been brought in the statute by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01-06-2015 only.
2.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating the legal position that in absence of provisions of clauses (c) to (f) inserted in sub- section (1) of section 200A of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1-6- 2015, there was neither any authority, for the revenue, to collect any fees as provided under s.234E of the Act nor there was any right available to an assessee to prefer an appeal against charging of such levy. The Id. CIT(A) ought to have considered that having admitted the appeal of the assessee under s.246A(1)(a) of the Act, he had impliedly accepted the position that power to levy fees under s.234E of the Act got emanated from the provisions of s.200A of the Act.
3.That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in
ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd not considering the legal position that under the provisions of section 234E of the Act, the fees was compulsorily required to be collectible from the deductor before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with provisions of sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Act and no authority has been vested with the revenue authorities to collect any fees under s.234E of the Act after having been allowed an assessee to deliver his statement.
4That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the material fact that there was a reasonable cause for the appellant, for late submission of TDS statements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, no late fee under s.234E was leviable.
5.That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary.
From perusal of the grounds filed in the appeals which have been argued by the counsel, only one issue needs to be adjudicated as to whether the Revenue authorities were justified in levying the late fees u/s 234E of the Act in the statement processed u/s 200A of the Act. 4. Brief facts common to these appeals are that TDS return for
24 Quarter-II, 24 Quarter-III and 24 Quarter-IV and 26 Quarter-II,
26 Quarter-III and 26 Quarter-IV, for Financial Year 2013-14
respectively were filed on 03.01.2014 were processed by Central
Processing Cell (In short CPC) on 21.03.2014 after levying fee u/s
ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd 234E of the Act at Rs.1,02,750/-, Rs.96,722/-, Rs.63,842/-, Rs.
1,21,903/-, Rs.97,355/- and Rs.63,842/- respectively. Aggrieved
assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed.
Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued and
submitted that the case of assessee is squarely covered on the
decision of Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Bench, Indore in the case of Executive
Engineer & others (supra) ITA No.457 to 459/Ind/2019 order dated
26.7.2019.
Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued
supporting orders of both the lower authorities.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the records
placed before us and also carefully gone through the decisions
relied and referred by Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Sole issue
raised in this two appeals is against the levy of fee u/s 234E of the
Act by CPC for delay in filing the TDS quarterly returns and Ld.
CIT(A) confirming such levy of fee u/s 234E at Rs.1,02,750/- (24Q-
II), Rs.96,722/(24Q-III) -, Rs.63,842/- (24 Q-IV), Rs. 1,21,903/- (26
Q-II), Rs.97,355/-(26 Q-III) and Rs.63,842/- (26 Q-IV) respectively
ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd for Financial Year 2013-14. Quarterly returns were filed after the
due date.
We observe that the issue of levy of fee u/s 234E has came
before us on various occasions. As regards the fate of fees levied
u/s 234E of the Act for the returns filed and processed before
1.6.15 we after considering the judicial pronouncements have taken
a consistent view that the amendment brought in Finance Act, 2015
w.e.f. 1.6.2015 under Section 200A (clause (c)] of the Act is
prospective in nature thereby empowering the revenue authorities
to charge fee u/s 234E of the Act only after 1.6.2015. Various
judgments referred and relied by Ld. Counsel for the assessee also
lays down common ratio that since the amendment brought in by
Finance Act 2015 u/s 200A(c ) of the Act w.e.f. 1.6.2015 is
prospective in nature, therefore revenue authorities are not
empowered to levy the fees u/s 234E in the processing completed
before 1.6.2015.
In the instant case the date of filing the quarterly return and
their processing is before 1.6.2015, so in these given facts “whether
the revenue authorities were justified in levying fee u/s 234E of the
Act?”. We find that similar issue and same facts came up for 10
ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd adjudication before us in the case of Executive Engineer & others
ITA No.457 to 459/Ind/2019 order dated 26.7.2019 wherein we
decided as follows (relevant extract) :-
Now coming to the last contention as well as main issue that whether in all the remaining cases except that of Rohit Singh in ITANo.422/Ind/2019 whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in levying the fee u/s 234E of the Act. The common fact in all these cases are that the date of filing TDS return as well as date of CPC order is after 01.06.2015. We observe that recently Coordinate Bench of Jaipur in the case of Shri Uttam Chand Gangwal Vs ACIT in ITA No. 764/JP/2017 dated 23/01/2019 adjudicated the similar issue of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act in the TDS return and the CPC order passed after 01.06.2015. Following decision was rendered by the Coordinate Bench:
In the instant case, the assessee filed its TDS return in Form No. 26Q for the quarter ended 31st March, 2015 on 22nd July, 2015 and the same was processed and an intimation dated 30 July, 2015 was issued by the AO u/s 200A of the Act. Thus, both the filing of the return of income by the assessee and processing thereof has happened much after 1.6.2015 i.e, the date of assumption of jurisdiction by the AO u/s 200A(1)(C) to levy fees under section 234E of the Act. Even though the quarterly return pertains to quarter ended 31.3.2015, the fact remains that there is a continuing default even after 1.6.2015 and the return was actually filed on 22.07.2015. The said provisions cannot be read to say that where an assessee file his return of income for the period falling after 1.6.2015 and there is a delay on his part to file the return in time, he will suffer the levy of fees, however, an assessee who has delayed the filing of the return of income even pertaining to the period prior to 1.06.2015, he can be absolved from such levy even though there is a continuous default ITA No. 764/JP/2017 Shri Uttam Chand Gangwal, Ajmer Vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad on his part even after 1.6.2015. In our view, the AO has acquired the jurisdiction to levy the fees as on 1.06.2015 and
ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd therefore, any return filed and processed after 1.6.2015 will fall within his jurisdiction where on occurrence of any default on part of the assessee, he can levy fee so mandated u/s 234E of the Act. Therefore, irrespective of the period to which the quarterly return pertains, where the return is filed after 1.6.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act. At the same time, in terms of determining the period for which fees can be levied, only saving could be that for the period of delay falling prior to 1.06.2015, there could not be any levy of fees as the assumption of jurisdiction to levy such fees have been held by the Courts to be prospective in nature. However, where the delay continues beyond 1.06.2015, the AO is well within his jurisdiction to levy fees under section 234E for the period starting 1.06.2015 to the date of actual filing of the TDS return. In light of the same, in the instant case, the levy of fees under section 234E is upheld for the period 1.06.2015 to the date of actual filing of the TDS return which is 22.07.2015 and the balance fee so levied is hereby deleted. In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed.
From perusal of the above decision we find that the issue before us is similar to the issue adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench and we accordingly hold that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act by the CPC, however we direct the revenue authorities to make necessary verification in each of the case so as to look into the fact that in case if any fee u/s 234E is levied for the delay in filing return for the period before 01.06.2015, the same is directed to be deleted and the remaining fee levied for the default committed from 01.06.2015 onwards needs to be confirmed.
In light of the above decision which squarely applies on the
instant appeals since the issue and facts remain the same, we are
thus of the considered view that the assessee is eligible for relief for
ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd deletion of fee levied u/s 234E of the Act as the returns are processed before 1.6.2015. 11. In the result all the 6 appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order was pronounced in the open court on 24.11.2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
(MANISH BORAD) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Indore; Dated : 24/11/2020 /Dev
Copy to: Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/Guard file. By order Assistant Registrar, Indore