MESERS SVIM TECH SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,FIROZPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BATHINDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 428/ASR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 November 2019AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provisions for such levy were not in operation. The intimation for demanding fees under Section 200A for late fees was not valid if issued before June 1, 2015.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed TDS statements with delays for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Assessing Officer levied late fees under Section 234E, which were affirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether late fees under Section 234E can be levied for delays in furnishing TDS returns prior to June 1, 2015, and if intimation under Section 200A for such fees is valid before this date.

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(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, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY & DR. A.L.SAINI

Hearing: 27.11.2019Pronounced: 27.11.2019

PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM:

Both the appeals have been preferred by the Assessee/Appellant against the common order dated 23.05.2018 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-Bathinda U/s 250(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’) for Asst. Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively, in which the late fee has been levied u/s 234E of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’) qua charging of interest for late fee payment of TDS. The details of the statement filed on, due date, processed on, delay, and late fee imposed are detailed as under:

ITA Nos.427 & 428/Asr/ 2018 2 (A.Ys.2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Svim Tech Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO

Financial Year : 2013-14

Quarter Statement Due Date Processed Delay Late Fee Whether Filed on on application filed with CPC Q-1 02/08/2013 15/07/2013 15/11/2013 18 days Rs.3600/- Yes Q-2 08/11/2013 15/10/2013 15/11/2013 24 days Rs.4800/- Yes Q-3 27/02/2014 15/01/2014 17/03/2014 43 days Rs.8600/- Yes '

Financial Year: 2012-13 Quarter Due Date Processed on Delay Late Fee Q-2 02/08/2013 15/10/2012 30/01/2014 291 days The late fee was calculated at Rs.58,200/- but restricted to the total tax deducted to the extent of Rs.37,290/- Q-3 02/08/2013 15/01/2013 30/01/2014 199 days The late fee was calculated at Rs.39,800/- but restricted to the total tax deducted to the extent of Rs.37,290/- 79 days @ Rs. 200/- per day 02/08/2013 15/05/2013 08/02/2014 at Rs. 15,800/-

2.

The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the said levy of late fees while relying upon the judgment passed by the Gujrat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani Vs. UOI [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj).

3.

The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s M.G.N. Khalsa High School, Jalandhar vs. ACIT, CPV Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad in ITA Nos.16,17 & 18/Asr/2019 decided on 25.07.2019 analyzed the provision of law and also taken into consideration the said judgment of the Gujrat High Court in Rajesh Kourani (supra) and other

ITA Nos.427 & 428/Asr/ 2018 3 (A.Ys.2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Svim Tech Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO

judgments of various High Courts on the identical issue and held, the provisions of charging fee under section 234E only comes in operation if the assessee make any default in furnishing TDS Return after 1st June, 2015 when the enabling provisions in the Act have been provided, but prior to that if there is any delay in furnishing of TDS returns and the same have been processed before 1st June, 2015 then no late fee can be levied.

4.

Even ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of SIBIA HEALTHCARE (P) Ltd. reported as 171 TTJ 145 (Asr) clearly held that intimation issued u/s 200A of the Act for demanded fees u/s 234E was not valid in law, if the same was issued on or before 1st June, 2015. Recently, while dealing with the similar and identical issue, in ITA No. 110(Asr)/2017, we considered the judgment passed in the case of SIBIA HEALTHCARE (P) Ltd. (supra) and deleted the late fee concerning to period prior to amendment.

5.

The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India (supra) while dealing with the same issue and analyzed the amendment dated 1st June, 2015 and construed that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect-Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under section 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective Asst. Year prior to 1st June, 2015. Having been considered the case of the SIBIA HEALTHCARE (P) Ltd. (supra) and true spirit of the aforesaid

ITA Nos.427 & 428/Asr/ 2018 4 (A.Ys.2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Svim Tech Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO

judgment delivered by the Karnataka High Court, we are of the considered opinion that late fee cannot be levied for the period prior to 1st June, 2015.

Hence, considering the facts of the instant cases are identical to the facts of the orders passed by ITAT, Amritsar Bench in M/s. M.G.N. Khalsa High School, Jalandhar (supra) and in the case of SIBIA HEALTHCARE (P) Ltd. reported as 171 TTJ 145 (Asr) and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India (2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602, we are inclined to delete the late fees imposed by the AO and affirmed by the ld. CIT(A).

6.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/11/2019. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. A.L.SAINI) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27/11/2019. /PK/ Ps. Copy forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. Then CIT(Appeals) 5. SR DR, I.T.A.T. Amritsar 6. Guard File True Copy By Order

More judgments on Section 234E

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →