BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A), HALDWANI

PER BENCH: Captioned appeals by the appellant arise out of separate

orders passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),

Haldwani, upholding levy of fee under section 234E of the

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for different periods.

behalf of the assessee to represent the appeals, despite issuance

of notice of hearing. Therefore, considering the nature of dispute

arising in these appeals, we proceed to dispose of the appeals ex-

parte qua the appellant after hearing learned Departmental

Representative and based on the materials available on record.

in these appeals, it is necessary to observe, Registry has notified a 2 | P a g e

ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019

delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the

averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of

delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due

to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing

the appeals and admit them for adjudication on merits. As stated

earlier, the common dispute in all these appeals relates to levy of

fee under section 234E of the Act for default in furnishing Tax

Deducted at Source (TDS) statements within the prescribed time

limit.

furnished by the assessee for different quarters in relevant

financial year, the Assessing Officer noticed, such TDS

statements were not furnished within the time limit prescribed

under the statute. Thus, invoking the provisions of section

200A(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer charged fee under

section 234E of the Act in respect of TDS statements furnished

beyond the prescribed time limit. Though, against the intimations

issued under section 200A of the Act, the assessee preferred

appeals before learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, the

appeals were dismissed in limine by learned Commissioner

3 | P a g e

ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019

(Appeals) due to inordinate delay of more than 3 years in filing the

appeals.

perused the materials on record. As per the provisions of section

200 of the Act, a person responsible for deducting tax at source is

required to remit the TDS amount to the Government account

and furnish statement of tax deducted at source within the

prescribed time limit. In case, there is default in furnishing the

TDS statement within the prescribed time limit, section 234E

provides for levy of fee. Though, section 234E of the Act was a

part of the statute with effect from 01.07.2012. However, there

was no enabling provision in the Statue laying down the

mechanism to levy and collect fee chargeable under section 234E

of the Act. However, by Finance Act, 2015 clause (c) was

introduced to section 200A(1) with effect from 01.06.2015

empowering the authority concerned to levy fee under section

234E of the Act while processing TDS statement. Thus, under

section 200A of the Act, the authority concerned is empowered to

levy fee under section 234E of the Act prospectively with effect

from 01.06.2015.

4 | P a g e

ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019

taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka), the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

while interpreting the provisions of sections 234E and 200A of the

Act has held that fee under section 234E of the Act cannot be

levied in respect of TDS statements furnished for a period prior to

01.06.2015. Same view has been expressed by Hon’ble Kerala

High Court in case of Sark Cable (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO [2022] 142

taxmann.com 30 (Kerala). Even, different Benches of the Tribunal

have expressed identical view. Thus, as per the ratio laid down in

various judicial precedents, the jurisdiction to levy late fee under

section 234E was given only from 01.06.2015. That being the

legal position, fee under section 234E of the Act cannot be levied

for any period prior to 01.06.2015.

dismissed the appeals in limine without deciding the issue on

merits. Keeping in view the legal position that late filing fee under

section 234E of the Act cannot be levied for any period prior to

01.06.2015. Whereas, in the facts of the present appeals, late

filing fee under section 234E of the Act has been levied even for

periods prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, we are inclined to set

aside the impugned orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and 5 | P a g e

ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019

restore the issue to the Assessing Officer/TDS Officer with a

direction to levy fee under section 234E of the Act only in cases

where there is delay in filing the TDS statements for periods after

01.06.2015.

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. 8.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th February, 2023

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28th February, 2023. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

6 | P a g e