KUMAR SPINNING MILLS PRIVAE LTD.,TIRUNELVELI vs. ACIT,TDS,CPC, GAZIABAD

आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश

PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These six appeals filed by the Assessee are

directed against separate, but identical orders of the

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income

Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC],

Delhi, all dated 12.07.2022 for the relevant Assessment

Years 2014 – 2015 and 2015 – 2016. Since the facts in all

:: 2 :: I.T.A. Nos.692 to 697CHNY/2022

these six appeals are identical and the issues common, for

the sake of convenience, these six appeals are heard

together and disposed off by this consolidated order.

common grounds in all these six appeals and therefore, for

the sake of brevity, the grounds that are raised in the

appeal filed by the Assessee in I.T.A. No.692/Chny/2022

are reproduced as under:

“1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous as the same is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case.

2.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal filed against the order u/s.154 of the Act for the reason that an appeal ought to have been filed against the order u/s.200A of the Act.

2.2 The Appellant having taken remedy available u/s.154 of the Act against the order u/s.200A of the Act prior to filing of the appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erroneously held that the order u/s.154 of the Act does not give rise to any new grievance.

2.3 The impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissing the appeal while failing to order the deletion of the late fee u/s.234E of the Act is illegal and liable to be quashed.

3.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act by way of substitution of clauses (c)

:: 3 :: I.T.A. Nos.692 to 697CHNY/2022

to (f) providing for demanding late fees u/s.234E of the Act having been inserted only with effect from 01.06.2015, the late fees of Rs.1,05,800/- levied by the intimation u/s.200A for payments made before such date is not supported by any enabling machinery / provision and is thus liable to be deleted.

3.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not observing that the demand of late fees by itself being without jurisdiction, the interest levied for delay in the payment of late fees u/s.220(2) of Rs.81,466/- also deserves to be deleted in toto.

3.3 IN any case, contrary to the observation of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), interest u/s.220(2) of the Act having been levied for the first time in order u/s.154 of the Act, the same is to be deleted as it falls outside the scope of Section 154(1) of the Act and runs contrary to Section 154(3) of the Act.”

filed the TDS Quarterly statement of Form 24Q for the

Quarter-2 [Q2] of the Financial Year 2013 – 2014 on

28.03.2015 which was due to be filed on 15.10.2013 with a

delay of 529 days. The Assessee had also filed a correction

statement on 19.08.2021 and an intimation u/s.154 of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 19.08.2021 that was received

by the Assessee. The Assessing Officer TDS(CPC) while

processing the quarterly statement had levied late fee

u/s.234E of the Act for 529 days for the delay in filing of

the quarterly TDS statement.

:: 4 :: I.T.A. Nos.692 to 697CHNY/2022

appeal before the First Appellate Authority and challenged

the levy of late fee u/s.234E of the Act for belated filing of

the TDS returns. The Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee

on technical grounds by holding that the Assessee ought to

have filed the appeal against the original order issued

u/s.200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was passed on

01.04.2015. However, the Assessee has filed an appeal

against the order passed u/s.154 of the Act and thus opined

that the limitation provided for filing of the appeal cannot

be extended to the order passed u/s.154 of the Act and

thus, the CIT(A) had rejected the appeal filed by the

Assessee and sustained the levy of late fee.

Income Tax (Appeals), the Assessee is now in appeal before

the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative of the

Assessee submitted that the learned Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal of the

:: 5 :: I.T.A. Nos.692 to 697CHNY/2022 Assessee filed against the order passed u/s.154 of the Act

without appreciating the fact that the Appellant/Assessee

had taken the remedy available u/s.154 of the Act against

the order passed u/s.200A of the Act prior to filing of the

appeal. Therefore, the learned Authorized Representative

of the Assessee submitted that the issues involved in this

appeal are to be set aside and the matter be sent back to

the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to

decide the issues involved in this appeal on merits.

other hand had supported the appellate order of the learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and submitted that

the Assessee ought to have filed the appeal against the

original order issued u/s.200A of the Act, levying late fee

u/s.234E of the Act. However, the Assessee preferred an

appeal against the order passed u/s.154 of the Act and

challenged the levy of late fee without appreciating the fact

that the scope of provision of Section 154 is very limited in

as much as the Assessee can question the validity of the

:: 6 :: I.T.A. Nos.692 to 697CHNY/2022 order. However, he cannot question the late fee levied in

the order passed u/s.200A of the Act.

materials available on record and had gone through the

orders of authorities below. It is an admitted fact that the

Assessee has filed the quarterly TDS returns beyond the

due date specified under the Act. The Assessing Officer has

processed the TDS returns filed by the Assessee and had

levied late fee u/s.234E of the Act for the delay in filing the

quarterly statement. The Assessee has filed a correction

statement and rectified the mistakes in filing the original

TDS statement and such correction statement has been

processed u/s.154 of the Act. The Assessee has challenged

the order passed u/s.154 of the Act before the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had rejected the

appeal filed by the Assessee against the order u/s.154 of

the Act on the ground that the Assessee ought to have filed

the appeal against the order passed u/s.200A of the Act

levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act, but the appeal cannot

:: 7 :: I.T.A. Nos.692 to 697CHNY/2022 be filed against the order passed u/s.154 of the Act. We do

not find merits in the reasons given by the CIT(A) in

dismissing the appeal filed by the Assessee for the simple

reason that the Act provides for filing correction statement

and to rectify any error or mistakes in the TDS statement

originally filed in the respective quarters and the said

statement has been processed by the TDS(CPC) and issued

intimation u/s.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further,

any order passed u/s.154 of the Act is an appealable order

before the first Appellate Authority. Therefore, in our

considered view, the Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) ought to have adjudicated the appeal filed by the

Assessee against the order passed u/s.154 of the Act and

should have decided the issues involved in this appeal on

merits. But, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee

by holding that the appeal filed by the Assessee against the

order passed u/s.154 of the Act is not maintainable. In our

considered view, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) is grossly erred in dismissing the appeal filed by

:: 8 :: I.T.A. Nos.692 to 697CHNY/2022 the Assessee as not maintainable, without discussing the

issues involved in the appeal on merits and thus, we set

aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) and restore the issues to the file of the first

Appellate Authority and direct the learned Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the issues involved in this

appeal on merits including the validity of the order passed

u/s.154 of the Act by the Assessing Officer and consequent

issues involved therein.

No.692/Chny/2022 is treated as allowed for statistical

purposes.

and issues involved in all these appeals filed by the

Assessee are identical to the facts and issues that we had

considered in I.T.A. No.692/Chny/2022 for the Assessment

Year 2014 – 2015. The reasons given by us in I.T.A.

No.692/Chny/2022 shall mutatis mutandis apply to these

appeals as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, we set aside

:: 9 :: I.T.A. Nos.692 to 697CHNY/2022 the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) and restore the issues involved in these appeals

to the first Appellate Authority and direct the learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the

appeals on merits.

I.T.A. Nos.692 to 697/CHNY/2022 are treated as allowed

for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 12th October, 2022 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (वी दुगा� राव) (जी मंजूनाथा) (V. DURGA RAO) (G. MANJUNATHA) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 12th October, 2022 IA, Sr. PS आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु� (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयु�/CIT 5. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड�फाईल/GF