C & M FARMING LTD,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CPC) -TDS, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2009/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 November 20194 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to charge late fees under Section 234E read with Section 200A for the period prior to the insertion of the computation procedure for late fees, which was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the imposition of late fees was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed TDS quarterly statements late for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16. The Assessing Officer imposed late fees under Section 234E read with Section 200A of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether late fee under Section 234E read with Section 200A is leviable for TDS statements filed late before the amendment inserting the computation procedure for late fees.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 200A,Section 234E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM

For Appellant: Shri Kishore Phadke
For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Hearing: 05.11.2019Pronounced: 06.11.2019

PER BENCH :

All these ten appeals are filed by the assessee against a common

order dated 30.06.2017 passed by CIT(A)-3, Nashik for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Shri Kishore Phadke, Ld.A.R. submits that the assessee raised

additional ground of appeal and prayed to take up the same as preliminary

issue. Ld. D.R. Shri Pankaj Garg, reported no objection in taking up

additional ground raised by the assessee as preliminary issue.

3.

We find the assessee raised similar additional ground in all the appeals above on same identical facts except variance in amounts and therefore with the consent of both the parties, proceed to adjudicate the additional ground raised by the assessee in ITA No.2008/PUN/2017 as lead case and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

4.

The issue raised in additional ground is to whether the CIT(A)

justified in confirming late fee imposed in Q4-24Q for A.Y. 2013-14 u/s 200A r.w. 234E of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5.

We shall take up the appeal in ITA.No.2008/PUN/2017. 6. Brief facts emanating from the record, that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of Poultry Farming and filed its TDS

Quarterly Statement of Quarter – 4 for A.Y. 2013-14 on 05.02.2014 with a delay of 266 days. According to ACIT(TDS-CPC), the assessee should have filed TDS Quarterly Statement on 15.05.2013 and accordingly imposed

late fee u/s 234E of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the late fee in respect of 24Q-Q4. 7. The contention of Shri Kishore Phadke, the Ld.A.R. is that AO has no jurisdiction to charge late fee u/s 234E of the Act for the reason that there

was no enabling procedure for computation of late fee u/s 200A of the Act

concerning the year under consideration. Further, he submitted that the computation of late fee was inserted in the Finance Act w.e.f. 01.06.2015

and since the amendment is prospective in nature, the late fee imposed u/s 234E r.w. 200A of the Act is not maintainable in the present case. The reported in (2018) 100 taxmann.com 78 (Pune - Trib) and referred to Para

Nos.15 & 16 and submitted that the demand of late fee is not maintainable

even if the returns of the TDS were filed after 01.06.2015, the order

charging late filing fee was passed after 01.06.2015. He argued that the factual circumstances are similar to the present case, the assessee filed

TDS statements belatedly after 01.06.2015 and the ACIT, (CPS-TDS)

charged late fee u/s 234E of the Act after 01.06.2015. The Ld. D.R. did

not controvert the same.

8.

Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. We

find the issue raised in the present appeal is similar to the issue raised by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Medical

Superintendent Rural Hospital, DOBI BK(supra), wherein the co-ordinate

Bench of the Tribunal held that charging of late fee u/s 234E of the Act is not maintainable even if the assessee files TDS returns belatedly and the Assessing Officer issues intimation u/s 200A of the Act after 01.06.2015

charging late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of Shri Kishore Phadke, Ld.A.R. and the imposition of late fee

u/s 200A r.w 234E of the Act confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) is set aside. Thus,

additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

9.

Further, main grounds 1 to 5 raised in Form No.36 become academic

and require no adjudication in view of our decision on additional ground in the formation para. Thus, the same are dismissed.

10.

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No.2008/PUN/2017 is allowed.

11.

Now, we shall take up ITA Nos.2009 to 2017/PUN/2017. 12. Since the additional ground raised in all these appeals are similar to the additional ground raised in ITA No.2008/PUN/2017 and since we

decided the additional ground in favour of the assessee and the same is equally applicable in ITA Nos.2009 to 2017/PUN/2017. Thus, the additional ground raised by the assessee in all the appeals above are allowed.

13.

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced on 6th day of November, 2019. (D. KARNUKARA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

पुणे Pune; "दनांक Dated : 6th November, 2019. Yamini

आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

2.

""यथ" / The Respondent

3.

CIT(A)-3, Nashik.

4.

CIT(TDS), Pune.

5.

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, “बी”/ DR, ITAT, “B” Pune; 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स "या // // / ////

व"र"ठ "नजी स"चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

More judgments on Section 200A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →