RAJIV ANAND & SONS,GWALIOR vs. ITO TDS, GWALIOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 113/AGR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 September 2019AY 2016-176 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision for processing TDS statements and making adjustments. Even for belated filings before June 1, 2015, the AO was competent to levy fee under Section 234E, especially since the amendment to Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, specifically provided for computing such fees.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed TDS returns belatedly for the financial year 2015-16 (Assessment Year 2016-17). The Assessing Officer levied a late fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, which was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the levy of late fee under Section 234E is valid for belated TDS filings prior to the amendment of Section 200A, and whether Section 200A provides the necessary machinery for such levy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)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, AGRA BENCH: AGRA

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR, & DR. MITHA LAL MEENA

For Appellant: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.09.2019Pronounced: 18.09.2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH: AGRA

BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A No.113 to 115/Agra/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEARs-2016-17)

Rajeev Anand And Sons (HUF) Vs.. DCIT-(TDS), Wearless Dresses B-125, 126 Gwalior. Harishankar Puram, Jhansi road, Gwalior. PAN: AAFHR7725C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by None Assessee by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR.

Date of Hearing 13.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement 18.09.2019

ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, A.M.: This bunch of three appeals are directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Gwalior, against upholding levy of fee u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter short the ‘Act’).

2.

Since a common issue is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2 I.T.A No.113 to 115/Agra/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEARs-2016-17) 3. Briefly, the facts are that the late fees have been levied by the AO u/s 234E of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has uphold the levy of 234E of the Act by relying on judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ‘Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India’, 83 Taxmann.com 137(Guj) wherein after considering various previous decisions categorically hold that section 200A is a machinery provision providing mechanism processing statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustment. It has been held that even in the cases where statements were filed belatedly before 01.06.2015, the AO was competent to levy fee u/s 234E even without regulatory provision being found in section 200A of the Act. He further holds that w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the statutes specifically provide for computing of fees payable u/s 234E.

4.

We have considered the submission of the assessee made before the ld. CIT(A) submitted that in the present case the processing of TDS return of the 2nd quarter for financial year 2015-16 relevant to assessment year 2016-17 where late fee has been levied by the AO u/s 234E for the inadvertent mistake in mentioning the section 201 as against the correct section is 200A. He further submitted that the assessee has corrected current amount of TDS and paid to the credit of central government within due date. However, due to shifting of business premises, the TDS return could not be file in time. The Chartered Accountant of the assessee

3 I.T.A No.113 to 115/Agra/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEARs-2016-17) being out stations, the assessee was prevented sufficient and reasonable cause to file the TDS return. He prayed that under the circumstances, the relief may be granted to the assessee.

5.

The ld. DR placed strong reliance on the impugned order and contended that the constitutional validity of section 234E of the Act has been upheld by various Courts in favour of revenue holding that provisions of section 234E or neither ultra vires nor in constitutional. Support placed reliance on the following case laws:

“i. Dr. Amrit Lal Mangal (2015) 62 Taxmann.Com 310 (P & H).

ii. Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan (2015) 63 Taxmann.com 243(Raj).

iii. Rashmikant Kundalia Vs. UOI (2015) 54 Taxmann.com 200 (Bombay) and iv. ‘Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India’, 83 Taxmann.com 137(Guj).”

6.

Heard. The issue involved in all these appeals is as to whether late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act has rightly been charged in the intimation issued u/s 200A of the Act while proceeding the e-TDS statements, the enabling clause (c) having been inserted in the section w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Earlier, there was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E.

4 I.T.A No.113 to 115/Agra/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEARs-2016-17) As such, as per the assessee, in respect of e-TDS statement filed for a period up to 31.03.2015, no late fee could be levied in the intimation issued u/s 200A of the Act. However, the relevant period involved is beyond 31.03.2015 in the present bunch of appeals.

7.

It is noted that the late fees have been levied by the AO u/s 234E of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has uphold the levy of 234E of the Act by relying on judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ‘Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India’, 83 Taxmann.com 137(Guj). In our considered view, the section 200A is a machinery provision providing mechanism for processing statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustment prior to the date of amendment in the statutes i.e. 01.06.2015. Considering the provisions of law in the light of the facts of the case we are inclined to agree with the observation of ld. CIT(A) that even in the cases where statements were filed belatedly before 01.06.2015, the AO was competent to levy fee u/s 234E even without regulatory provision being found in section 200A of the Act and that w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the statutes specifically provide for computing of fees payable u/s 234E.

In the case of Rajesh Kaurani (supra) the Hon’ble Gujarat High after 8. considering various previous decisions categorically held that section 200A is a machinery provision providing mechanism for processing statement of deduction

5 I.T.A No.113 to 115/Agra/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEARs-2016-17) of tax at source and for making adjustment. It has been held that even in the cases where statements were filed belatedly before 01.06.2015, the AO was competent to levy fee u/s 234E even without regulatory provision being found in section 200A of the Act. This judgment of Rajesh Kaurani (supra) partakes a character of binding precedent because this judgment was delivered after considering various ITAT/High Court’s decisions including ‘Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs.UOI’, 73 Taxmann.com 252 (Kar, HC), which was followed by this Bench in the earlier cases of on this issue for the period prior to 31.03.2015.

In the above view, respectfully following Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in 9. Rajesh Kaurani (supra), and amended provision of law inserted u/s 234E of the Act dated 01.06.2015 w.e.f. 01.07.2012, the grievance of the assessee is unjustified and it is as such rejected. Accordingly, the orders of the CIT(A) are confirmed and the fee so levied under section 234E of the Act is confirmed.

10.

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18/09/2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (Laliet Kumar) (Dr. M.L. Meena) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *AKV*

6 I.T.A No.113 to 115/Agra/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEARs-2016-17)

More judgments on Section 234E

All 4,792 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234E →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →