AVON GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS,WARD-1(3), CHENNAI

The grievance of the assessee, in all the captioned appeals, is identical i.e., levy of fees 234E for late filing of quarterly TDS returns. The Ld. AR submitted that due to inadvertent error, wrong orders were appealed before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, drawing attention to impugned orders, submitted that the orders appealed by the assessee were not appealable orders and therefore, the appeals have rightly been dismissed by first appellate authority. Having heard rival submissions, the appeals are disposed-off as under.

Aggrieved by levy of fees u/s 234E for various assessment years, the assessee preferred further appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The same has been tabulated in para-4 of the impugned order for AY 2009-10. However, it was noted that the assessee preferred appeal against recovery letter issued by AO on 16-12-2020 whereas orders were passed u/s 201 much earlier. The assessee expressed inability of furnish the copies of the order as required by Ld. CIT(A). In the absence of any satisfactory reply forthcoming from the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee preferred appeal against recovery letter which, in fact, is not an appealable order u/s 246A. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable. In few of the years for which details were made available, orders u/s 200A were found to be passed before more than 10 years ago. The same has been tabulated in para-6 of the impugned order. The assessee failed to explain the inordinate delay and could not demonstrate any sufficient cause for such inordinate delay. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed for want of condonation of delay and also on the ground that the appeals were not maintainable. The Ld. CIT(A) also held that fees u/s 234E was a statutory fees which could be levied w.e.f. 01-07-2012 as per the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Rajesh Kourani vs. UOI (83 Taxmann.com 137). Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Similar adjudication was rendered for all the years against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. Having considered impugned order, it could be seen that the assessee has preferred appeal against recovery letters which are not, at all, appealable orders u/s 246A. Therefore, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on this score only. Moreover, the assessee seeks to challenge the orders passed for more than 10 years ago without demonstrating any sufficient cause for such inordinate delay. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders, in any manner. We are also of the considered opinion that fee u/s 234E is statutory fees and the same is a mandatory levy w.e.f. 01-06-2015 as per the most favorable decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatehraj Singhvi V/s Union of India (73 Taxmann.com 252 26/08/2016). Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned orders. 4. All the appeals stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 27th March, 2023.