Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
S. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 1821 to 2013- YH Reddy Income-tax 14 to 1826/H/ Constructions, Officer (TDS), & 6 2018 Secunderabad. Ward – 2 (4), 2014- Hyderabad 15 PAN – AAAFY8091K 7 1834, 2013- Ortin Laboratories Income-tax 14 to 1835, Ltd., Hyderabad. Officer (TDS), 16 1837, Ward – 2 (1), to 1838, PAN – Hyderabad 1841, AAACO 2401 L 2015- 1842, 16 1844, 1845, 1847, 1848/H/18 17 1926 2014- Prognosys Electro Income-tax 15 to to Mechanical Services Officer (TDS), to 22 1931/Hyd/ Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 2 (1), 2015- 2018 Hyderabad. Hyderabad 16 PAN – AADCP 9293N 23 1945 2014- Sphinx Engineers Income-tax 15 to to Pvt. Ltd., Officer (TDS), 27 1948/H/18 Hyderabad. Ward – 2 (2), Hyderabad PAN – AA1CS3820 P Assessee by : Shri K.A. Sai Prasad Shri Kiran Katta Revenue by : Date of hearing : 26/03/2019 Date of pronouncement : 05/04/2019 O R D E R PER BENCH:` All these appeals filed by assessees are directed against the orders of CIT(A) – 8, Hyderabad, all dated, 25/06/2018 for AYs 2013-
2 ITA Nos. 1821/Hyd/2018 and others. YH Reddy Constructions and others 14 to 2016-17. As identical issue is involved in these appeals, the same were clubbed and heard together and, therefore, a common order is passed for the sake of convenience.
On perusal of record, we find that there was a delay of 5 to 15 days in filing all these appeals before us and the ld. AR of the assessees, who is representing them, filed an affidavit wherein he affirmed that at the relevant point of time, his father who was 70 years old had to undergo cataract surgery, due to which, the delay occurred in filing these appeals. Since the delay was due to failure on the part of AR, for which, he has acknowledged the same by filing Affidavit. As the assessee was prevented by sufficient reason for filing the appeals belatedly, we condone the same and admit the appeals for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are, all these assessee companies filed its statements in Forms 24Q and 26Q for all quarters for FYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 relevant to AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16. CPC raised late filing levy u/s 234E for each quarter.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) dismissed all the appeals in-limine on the ground that there was a huge delay exceeding one year in filing these appeals rejecting the contention of the assessee that as per proviso to section 200A, intimation u/s 200A(1) shall not be sent before the expiry of one year from the end of the FY in which the statement is filed, rejecting the submissions of the assessees that the appeals could not be filed within the due date on account of blockage of e- mail in the spam folder and the same could not be noticed by the accounts department of the company and the company came to know the demand outstanding only on receipt of communication of demand
3 ITA Nos. 1821/Hyd/2018 and others. YH Reddy Constructions and others from the income tax department and thereafter assessees approached the tax consultant for filing appeals.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessees are in appeals before us contending, in the preliminary grounds, that the CIT(A) is not justified in non-condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal merely on the grounds of limitation rather than merits.
At this juncture, we are of the view that there is no point in sending the appeals to CIT(A) to decide the same on merits, as the issue in dispute is legal and settled issue, therefore, we adjudicate all these appeals, on merits.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that similar issue came up for consideration before the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Terra Infra Development Ltd., Hyderabad in ITA Nos. 1876 & 1875/Hyd/2017 for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, order dated 03/10/2018 (wherein both the Members are party), wherein the coordinate bench has held as under:
We find that though the provisions for levy of fee in certain cases has been brought into the Statute book w.e.f. 1.7.2012, it has been brought under the purview of section 200A only w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Therefore, as rightly held by the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Sonalac Paintings & Coatings Ltd (cited Supra) we hold that the interest u/s 234E cannot be levied in respect of TDS returns filed prior to 1.6.2015. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant para is reproduced hereunder: "10. Now coming to the merits of the case, we find force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no mandate, as per the Statute, to make any adjustment on account of levy of fees u/s 234E while processing TDS returns u/s 200A. We have taken note of the order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court holding the amendment made to section 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015, giving power to make adjustment on account of fees u/s 234E while processing returns u/s 200A to be retrospective in nature, stating that this power given to the
4 ITA Nos. 1821/Hyd/2018 and others. YH Reddy Constructions and others AO is a machinery provision while the substantive provision of the power to levy fees u/s 234E was always there on the Statute from 01.06.2012. But at the same time, we note that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that levy of fees u/s 234E while processing returns, TDS u/s 200A prior to 01.06.2015 was without any authority of law. With two divergent view of the Hon'ble High Courts on the issue and in the absence of any decision by the jurisdictional High Court, we concur with the learned Counsel for the assessee that as per the well accepted rule of construction, if two reasonable constructions of a statute are possible the construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. In view of the same, respectfully following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi (Supra), we hold that the fees levied in all the present cases u/s 234E prior to 01.06.2015 in the intimations made u/s 200A was without authority of law and the same is therefore, directed to be deleted. In view of the above, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed". 5. Respectfully following the same, assessee's appeals for both the A.Ys are allowed.”
8.1 In the case under consideration, on perusal of record, we find that the TDS returns filed by the assessee for the relevant period i.e., FYs 2012-13 to 2015-16 were prior to 01/06/2015. Therefore, respectfully following the said decision of the coordinate bench, we direct the AO to delete the fees levied u/s 234E. Accordingly, the grounds raised on this issue in all the appeals under consideration are allowed.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 5th April, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated: 5th April, 2019 kv
5 ITA Nos. 1821/Hyd/2018 and others. YH Reddy Constructions and others
Copy to:-
1 YH Reddy Constructions, C/o Ch. Parthasarathy & Secunderabad Co., 1-1-298/2/B/3, 1st 2 Ortin Laboratories Ltd., Hyderabad Floor, Sowbhagya Avenue, St. No. 1, 3 Prognosys Electro Mechanical Ashoknagar, Hyderabad – Services Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 500 020. 4 Sphinx Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 5 ITO, TDS, Ward – 2(4), 4th Floor, D- Block, IT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad. 6 ITO, TDS, Ward 2(1)/2(2), Hyderabad 7 CIT(A) – 8, Hyderabad 8 CIT(TDS) Hyderabad 9 The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad 10 Guard File