Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in trading Tarpaulins, filed TDS quarterly statements late for Financial Years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. Consequently, the CPC raised demands under Section 234E of the Act for late filing.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had ruled that there was no provision to levy fees under Section 234E for the period in question. Therefore, the demands raised were unnecessary and the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal for delay was unjust.
Key Issues
Whether the levy of fee under Section 234E of the Act is applicable for the period for which the appeals were filed, and if the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) should be condoned.
Sections Cited
234E, 35
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI.LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI.KESHAV DUBEY
Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :
These three appeals are filed by the assessee. None was present for the assessee. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are identical, these were heard together and are disposed off by way of this common Order for the sake of convenience. We took up the case for hearing in the present of learned DR.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading in Tarpaulins. Assessee filed TDS quarterly statement of Form 26Q for Financial Year 2012-13 on 15.10.2013 which was due to be filed on 15.05.2013.
, 1547, 1548/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 3. After filing of TDS quarterly return, TDS, CPC, Aaykar Bhavan Sector, Ghaziabad, processed the return as under:
Sl. No. Quarter Financial Date of Demand raised Year processing under section 234E of the Act (in Rs.) 1. 26 Q4 2012-13 18.10.2016 30,600/- 2. 26 Q1 2013-14 14.06.2015 43,198/- 3. 26 Q3 2014-15 16.05.2015 23,200/-
The learned CIT(A) noted that assessee has filed appeals with delay as noted above. In this regard, as per Form 35 at Sl.No.15, the reasons have been explained by the assessee which is as under:
The learned CIT(A) observed that the reason given by the assessee is a general explanation and there is no sufficient cause stated in the reasons. Therefore, after relying on various judgments, he dismissed appeal and delay was not condoned.
Against the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned DR submitted that learned CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee since the appeal was not filed within 30 days as per the statutory time limit fixed for filing appeal before the learned CIT(A) without sufficient , 1547, 1548/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 cause. The reasons stated by the assessee is general in nature. Accordingly, the CIT(A) has rightly dismissed appeal.
Considering the submissions of the learned DR and on going through the issue of the assessee, we noted that the issue relates for the Financial Years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The issue is completely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi Vs. Union of India reported in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka). On going through the above judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, we noted that there was no provision to levy fee under section 234E of the Act for the aforesaid period and the TDS, CPC has raised demand unnecessarily. If there is no such provision to levy fee under section 234E of the Act, then why the assessee should suffer for payment of fee. The provision for levy of fee is not applicable to the assessee and not condoning the dealy by the CIT(A) is great injustice to the assessee. There was only delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) and relying on the above judgment of jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court, we allow appeal of the assessee.
In the result, addition made for the Financial Years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 towards levy of fee under section 234E of the Act are deleted.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed.