ICMC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITD, CPC, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1365/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 February 20226 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the fee levied under Section 234E, which was introduced effective June 1, 2015, could not be applied retrospectively to defaults occurring before that date. Following the principle of favoring the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions, the levy was deemed unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The appeals concerned the levy of late fee under Section 234E for delayed filing of TDS statements for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The Assessing Officer had issued notices for payment of late fee under Section 200A.

What were the issues?

Whether the late fee under Section 234E is applicable to defaults in filing TDS statements that occurred prior to its effective date of June 1, 2015.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 200A,Section 234E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Saktijit DeyDr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Adv. Maheshwari & Co., CA, Adv. Maheshwari & Co., CA, Adv. Maheshwari & Co., CA, Adv. Maheshwari & Co., CA, Adv. Maheshwari & Co., CA, Adv. Maheshwari & Co., CA, Adv. Maheshwari & Co., CA
For Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.02.2022Pronounced: 25.02.2022

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

All the above mentioned cases deal with the similar issue involving varying amounts, hence are being adjudicated by a common order.

2.

The ACIT/ITD(TDS-CPC) issued notice for payment of late fee u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for delay in filing of quarterly TDS statement for fourth quarter for the financial years 2013-14 & for all the quarters of F.Y. 2014-15 and in all the cases for the quarter ending prior to 01.06.2015.

3.

The First Appellate Authorities have held that the fee was leviable u/s 200A for filing of returns.

4.

The provisions of 200A(1)(c) inserted by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 reads as under:

“200A. (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source or a correction statement has been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 200, such statement shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the sums deductible under this Chapter shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:—

(i) any arithmetical error in the statement; or (ii) an incorrect claim, apparent from any information in the statement; (b) the interest, if any, shall be computed on the basis of the sums deductible as computed in the statement; (c) the fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E;”

5.

In the absence of any machinery provisions to charge the late fee u/s 200A, the issue of levy of fee u/s 234E which was introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2015 has been examined in the context of its applicability whether retrospective or prospective.

6.

The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Fatehraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. 2016 (9) TMI 964 is in favour of the assessee holding that the amendments brought in statute w.e.f. 01.06.2015 are prospective in nature and as such, notices issued u/s 200A of the Act for computation and intimation of payment of late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act relating to the period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015 was not maintainable.

7.

At the same time, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Rajesh Kourani vs. UOI (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 has decided the issue against the assessee.

8.

Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable products Limited 88 ITR 192 (SC) pronouncing that, when there are conflicting decisions the view taken in favour of the assessee should be followed is relevant to adjudication of the matter before us. Hence, the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Authorities confirming the late fee levied by the AO u/s 200A read with section 234E in all the cases wherein the defaults were prior to 01.06.2015 is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

More judgments on Section 200A

All 4,379 judgments and leading authorities on Section 200A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →