C. PANNEERSELVAM,KUNDAPURA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 547/BANG/2021Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 December 2021AY 2015-164 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 Section 200A did not permit the AO to levy fees under Section 234E for defaults occurring prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of the fee was beyond the scope of Section 200A.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a TDS statement for Q4 2014-15 beyond the due date, resulting in a delay of 141 days. The Assessing Officer (AO) levied a late fee under Section 234E. The assessee contended that the AO lacked the power to charge this fee under Section 200A prior to a specific amendment.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO had the power to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A for defaults prior to June 1, 2015.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 200A,Section 234E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 09.12.2021Pronounced: 27.12.2021

Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 17.8.2021 for the AY 2015-16 on the following grounds:-

“1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] passed under Section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.

2.

The appellant deities himself liable to be charged fees under section 234F of the Act amounting to Rs.28,200/ on the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Section 200A does not permit processing of TDS statement for default in payment of late fees for the period 01/01/2012 to 01/06/2015 & the levy of fees processed U/s 2001 for the above period, is liable to be deleted full, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act amounting to Rs.28,200/ computed by the learned assessing officer on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without Prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that there was no enabling provision prior to 01/06/2015 to recover fee u/s. 234E and that the levy of 234E for the impugned year being prior to 01/06/2015 needs to be quashed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the hearing of the appeal the Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice.” 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed TDS Form for the quarter Q4 2014-15 on 3.10.2015 which is beyond the due date i.e. 15/05/2015. There was a delay of 141 days. The AO levied late fee u/s. 234E @ Rs.200 per day for 141 days aggregating to Rs.28,200. The assessee submitted that the AO has no power to charge the said fees while processing the TDS returns u/s. 200A of the Act prior to the substitution of clause (c) to Section 200A(1) vide Finance Act, 2015. The CIT(Appeals), NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us.

3.

After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before the Chennai Tribunal in the case of G. Indrani v. DCIT, 43 CCH 511 (Chennai) wherein it was held as follows:-

The AO cannot make any adjustment other than the one prescribed above in Section 200A. By Finance Act, 2015, with effect from 01.06.2015, the Parliament amended Section 200A by substituting sub-section (1) of clauses (c) to (e). Therefore, it is obvious that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act for making adjustment in respect of the statement filed by the assessee with regard to tax deducted at source by levying fee under Section 234E. The Parliament for the first time enabled the AO to make adjustment by levying fee u/s 234E with effect from 01.06.2015. Thus, while processing statement under Section 200A, the AO cannot make any adjustment by levying fee u/s 234E prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, this Tribunal was of the considered opinion that the fee levied by the AO u/s 234E while processing the statement of tax deducted at source was beyond the scope of adjustment provided u/s 200A . Therefore, such adjustment cannot stand in the eye of law.

4.

In the present case also, filing of return is relating to last quarter of the FY 2014-15 i.e., Jan. to Mar. 2015. Being so, the above ratio laid down by the coordinate Bench is directly applicable to the facts of the case. Further, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. UOI, 142 DTR 281 (Karn) has taken the same view. In view of this, we are inclined to allow the appeal of the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed.

Pronounced in the open court on this 27th day of December, 2021.

More judgments on Section 200A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →