M/S. NAGESH CONSULTANTS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, (CPC)-TDS, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee filed application u/s.154 of the Act before the AO. The assessee’s contention before the AO was that the provisions of section 234E of the Act was inserted 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:-

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 TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act, could not levy fee u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of statement of TDS filed prior to 1.6.2015. The assessee, thus, challenged the validity of charging of fee u/s. 234E of the Act. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi v.

The AO by an order dated 22.11.2019 rejected the application u/s.154 of the Act. Against the said order, the Assessee filed before the NFAC/CIT(A). The NFAC/CIT(Appeals) agreed with the contention that the issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in favour of the Assessee in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi (supra). The NFAC/CIT(A) however found that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani Vs. UOI (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Guj) and Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Shree Narayana Guru Smaraka Sangam Vs. Union of India W.P. CO No.30229 of 2013 order dated 14.12.2016 has taken a 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.

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 the jurisdictional High Court ought to have been followed by the NFAC. The learned DR reiterated the stand of the revenue as reflected in the order of the CIT(A).

We have considered the submissions of the learned DR and also the grounds of appeal filed by the Assessee. It is not in dispute that if the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi (supra) is applied then the levy of interest u/s.234-E of the Act would be illegal for returns of TDS in respect of the period prior to 1.6.2015. The present appeals of the Assessee 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. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Subramaniam -vs.- Siemens India Ltd. (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom.) held that in the case where there is conflict of views between different High Courts, authorities must follow the decision of the High Court within whose jurisdiction he is functioning. The Court further added that in cases where there is a conflict 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:

In the case of Mahadev Cold Storage Vs. AO, & 42/Agr/2021 order dated 14.6.2021, it was held that although a centralized NFAC had been created by the notifications, it had to be ensured that where an appellate order was passed by the NFAC, the decision of the jurisdictional high court with jurisdiction over the AO should be followed and applied by the NFAC. Relief should not be refused to the taxpayer merely because there was a conflicting decision of a non-jurisdictional high court. It was held that an appeal against the decision of the Agra ITAT would be before the Allahabad High Court; therefore, the decision rendered by that court was binding not only on the ITAT but also on the NFAC (notwithstanding that it is was sitting in Delhi) that was deciding the issue pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Agra ITAT and hence the Allahabad High Court. The NFAC was bound by the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court, where the AO was situated.

In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the levy of interest u/s.234E of the Act in the present case cannot be sustained and the same is directed to be deleted and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.