Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual running a textile business, was levied a late filing fee of Rs. 23,800/- under Section 234E read with Section 200A of the Income Tax Act for belated filing of quarterly TDS returns for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's challenge against this levy, leading to the present appeals before the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal, relying on decisions of the jurisdictional Madras High Court and its own coordinate bench, held that Section 200A(1)(c), which provides the machinery for levying late fees under Section 234E, was introduced with effect from 01.06.2015. As the assessment years in question (2013-14 and 2014-15) fall prior to this date, there was no enabling statutory provision for the Assessing Officer to compute or levy such fees while processing TDS statements under Section 200A. Consequently, the levy of late fees for these periods is invalid and without authority, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the same.
Key Issues
Whether the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E for belated quarterly TDS returns processed under Section 200A is valid for assessment years prior to 01.06.2015, given that the enabling provision, Section 200A(1)(c), was introduced only from that date.
Sections Cited
154, 234E, 200A, 200A(1)(c), 220(2), 206C, 264C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:
These four appeals by the assessee are filed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, vide orders dated 19.08.2025. Since, facts are identical , 3064, 3061 & 3065 , 3064, 3061 & 3065/Chny/2025 (AYs 2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014 15 & 2014-15-20) PRAKASHCHAND Vs ITO Vs ITO, TDS Ward-1 and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals filed by the assessee are being heard together and disposed of by filed by the assessee are being heard together and disposed of by filed by the assessee are being heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order.
The assessee has raised similar grou The assessee has raised similar grounds of appeal for nds of appeal for all the captioned assessment assessment assessment years. years. years. We We We will will will take take take up up up ITA ITA ITA No. No. No. 3063/Chny/2025 for the assessment year 201 /Chny/2025 for the assessment year 2013-14 as lead case. as lead case.
Grounds of appeal filed in of appeal filed in for the /Chny/2025 for the assessment year 2013-1 14 are reproduced as under:-
1. The order of the Learned CIT(A) is contrary to law, The order of the Learned CIT(A) is contrary to law, The order of the Learned CIT(A) is contrary to law, facts, and circumstances of the case and is liable to be set facts, and circumstances of the case and is liable to be set facts, and circumstances of the case and is liable to be set aside.
2. The order of the Learned CIT(A) suffers fromlegal The order of the Learned CIT(A) suffers fromlegal The order of the Learned CIT(A) suffers fromlegal infirmity as the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the infirmity as the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the infirmity as the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act is without r passed u/s 154 of the Act is without r passed u/s 154 of the Act is without jurisdiction, since a rectification u/s 154 of the Act cannot exist jurisdiction, since a rectification u/s 154 of the Act cannot exist jurisdiction, since a rectification u/s 154 of the Act cannot exist independently of an original assessment order. independently of an original assessment order.
3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action u/s 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action u/s 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action u/s 154 of the Act. without appreciating that t 154 of the Act. without appreciating that the said provision provision empowers only correction of a mistake apparent empowers only correction of a mistake apparent from record from record in an existing order and cannot be invoked in an existing order and cannot be invoked independently to independently to create or modify an assessment denovo. create or modify an assessment denovo.
4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the levy of 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the levy of 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the levy of late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, r section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 1961, without appreciating that for the period prior to without appreciating that for the period prior to 01.06.2015, 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision under section 200A(1)(c) to there was no enabling provision under section 200A(1)(c) to there was no enabling provision under section 200A(1)(c) to compute or levy such fee while processing TDS statements. compute or levy such fee while processing TDS statements. compute or levy such fee while processing TDS statements.
5. The Learned CIT(A) failed 5. The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the to appreciate that the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) introduced by the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) introduced by the Finance Finance Act, 2015, is prospective in operation and Act, 2015, is prospective in operation and therefore cannot be therefore cannot be , 3064, 3061 & 3065 , 3064, 3061 & 3065/Chny/2025 (AYs 2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014 15 & 2014-15-20) PRAKASHCHAND Vs ITO Vs ITO, TDS Ward-1 applied to TDS statements pertaining to any period before applied to TDS statements pertaining to any period before applied to TDS statements pertaining to any period before 01.06.2015
6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that section that section 234E by itself creates a charge and liability to pay fee, 234E by itself creates a charge and liability to pay fee, 234E by itself creates a charge and liability to pay fee, overlooking that prior to 01.06.2015 there was no overlooking that prior to 01.06.2015 there was no statutory statutory machinery to compute or recover such fee, machinery to compute or recover such fee, rendering rendering the the levy invalid and without jurisdiction. levy invalid and without jurisdiction.
7. The Learned CIT(A) has 7. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order erred in confirming the order of the AO despite the existence of divergent judicial views on of the AO despite the existence of divergent judicial views on of the AO despite the existence of divergent judicial views on the issue without considering the principle laid down by the the issue without considering the principle laid down by the the issue without considering the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (88 Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (88 Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (88 ITR 192), when two views are possible, th ITR 192), when two views are possible, the one favourable to e one favourable to the assessee must be followed. the assessee must be followed.
8. The Learned CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that 8. The Learned CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that 8. The Learned CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that where conflicting judicial views exist, the later view in point of where conflicting judicial views exist, the later view in point of where conflicting judicial views exist, the later view in point of time is to be preferred, which supports the Assessee's time is to be preferred, which supports the Assessee's time is to be preferred, which supports the Assessee's contention that levy of contention that levy of fee under section 234E prior to fee under section 234E prior to 01.06.2015 is not legally tenable. 01.06.2015 is not legally tenable.
The Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that levy 9. The Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that levy 9. The Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that levy of fee under section 234E for a period prior to 01.06.2015 of fee under section 234E for a period prior to 01.06.2015 of fee under section 234E for a period prior to 01.06.2015 amounts to retrospective application of law, which is amounts to retrospective application of law, which is amounts to retrospective application of law, which is impermissible in the interpretation of fiscal matters unless n the interpretation of fiscal matters unless n the interpretation of fiscal matters unless expressly stated by the legislature. expressly stated by the legislature.
The Learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the levy of 10. The Learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the levy of 10. The Learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the levy of interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsus invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsustainable. tainable.
The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify or raise The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify or raise The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify or raise additional grounds at the time of hearing before this Hon'ble additional grounds at the time of hearing before this Hon'ble additional grounds at the time of hearing before this Hon'ble Tribunal,.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual is an individual and a tax deductor, deriving income from textile business. It incurs and a tax deductor, deriving income from textile business. It incurs and a tax deductor, deriving income from textile business. It incurs expenditure in its day expenditure in its day-to-day business activities. The assessee day business activities. The assessee deducts TDS on the expenditure thus incurred, wherever applicable deducts TDS on the expenditure thus incurred, wherever applicable deducts TDS on the expenditure thus incurred, wherever applicable , 3064, 3061 & 3065 , 3064, 3061 & 3065/Chny/2025 (AYs 2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014 15 & 2014-15-20) PRAKASHCHAND Vs ITO Vs ITO, TDS Ward-1 and pays it to the credit of the centra and pays it to the credit of the central government. It also files its l government. It also files its quarterly TDS statement as mandated by the statute. quarterly TDS statement as mandated by the statute. The assessee The assessee was liable to deduct TDS for payments made by it. Vide order was liable to deduct TDS for payments made by it. Vide order was liable to deduct TDS for payments made by it. Vide order u/s.154 of the Act dated u/s.154 of the Act dated 28.03.2025, Traces(TDS-CPC) levied late CPC) levied late filing fee of Rs.23,800/- - u/s.200A of the Act r.w.s.234E of the Act 00A of the Act r.w.s.234E of the Act for the third quarter of financial year 2013 quarter of financial year 2013-14 for belated filing of 14 for belated filing of quarterly TDS returns. The assessee has challenged late fee levied quarterly TDS returns. The assessee has challenged late fee levied quarterly TDS returns. The assessee has challenged late fee levied before first appellate authority. The ld.CIT(A) has after elaborate before first appellate authority. The ld.CIT(A) has after elaborate before first appellate authority. The ld.CIT(A) has after elaborate discussion of case laws and provisions of the Act dismissed the case laws and provisions of the Act dismissed the case laws and provisions of the Act dismissed the appeal of the assessee. .
4. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us.
We have heard ld. AR for the assessee and ld.DR. We have . We have heard ld. AR for the assessee and ld.DR. We have . We have heard ld. AR for the assessee and ld.DR. We have perused orders of the authorities below. W perused orders of the authorities below. We find that the issue e find that the issue involved in the present appeals filed by the assessee is on levy of involved in the present appeals filed by the assessee is on levy of involved in the present appeals filed by the assessee is on levy of late fee u/s.234E of the Act, for belated filing of quarterly TDS late fee u/s.234E of the Act, for belated filing of quarterly TDS late fee u/s.234E of the Act, for belated filing of quarterly TDS returns beyond prescribed date and this issue is squarely covered returns beyond prescribed date and this issue is squarely covered returns beyond prescribed date and this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdi by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the ctional Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Sri Rujula International vs. PCIT (WP Nos. 4307 of M/s.Sri Rujula International vs. PCIT (WP Nos. 4307 of M/s.Sri Rujula International vs. PCIT (WP Nos. 4307 of 2024, WMP Nos.4619 & 4621 of 2024) dated 12.09.2024 by 2024, WMP Nos.4619 & 4621 of 2024) dated 12.09.2024 2024, WMP Nos.4619 & 4621 of 2024) dated 12.09.2024 , 3064, 3061 & 3065 , 3064, 3061 & 3065/Chny/2025 (AYs 2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014 15 & 2014-15-20) PRAKASHCHAND Vs ITO Vs ITO, TDS Ward-1 following the earlier decisions of the Hon’ble High Court in the following the earlier decisions of the Hon’ble High Court in the following the earlier decisions of the Hon’ble High Court in the caseof 2023(10) TMI 1141 [M/s.True Blue 2023(10) TMI 1141 [M/s.True Blue Voice India Private Voice India Private Limited vs. Chief CIT, TDS [2024] 158 taxmann.com 67 (Madras) Limited vs. Chief CIT, TDS [2024] 158 taxmann.com 67 (Madras) Limited vs. Chief CIT, TDS [2024] 158 taxmann.com 67 (Madras) held as under:-
4. In the present case, the respondent had imposed the late fee only 4. In the present case, the respondent had imposed the late fee only 4. In the present case, the respondent had imposed the late fee only under Section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013, under Section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012 under Section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012 2013-2014. However, Se 2014. However, Section 200A of the Act was not introduced during ction 200A of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years and it was introduced only with effect from the said assessment years and it was introduced only with effect from the said assessment years and it was introduced only with effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, in the absence of any provisions under Section 01.06.2015. Therefore, in the absence of any provisions under Section 01.06.2015. Therefore, in the absence of any provisions under Section 200A of the Act, the respondents ought not to have imposed late fee 200A of the Act, the respondents ought not to have imposed late fee 200A of the Act, the respondents ought not to have imposed late fee under Section 234E while processing the applications for TDS under under Section 234E while processing the applications for TDS under under Section 234E while processing the applications for TDS under Section 200A. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court is of the Section 200A. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court is of the Section 200A. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Demand Intimation Letters are liable to be set opinion that the impugned Demand Intimation Letters are liable to be set opinion that the impugned Demand Intimation Letters are liable to be set aside.
5. Accordingly, the impugned demand In 5. Accordingly, the impugned demand Intimation Letters dated 28.03.2019 timation Letters dated 28.03.2019 are set aside and the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. are set aside and the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. are set aside and the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
6. Further, we note that the issue is already covered by the Further, we note that the issue is already covered by the Further, we note that the issue is already covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of the tribunal in the case of decision of the coordinate bench of the tribunal in the case of decision of the coordinate bench of the tribunal in the case of Gopuram Enterprises Private Gopuram Enterprises Private Limited vs. ACIT, Limited vs. ACIT, 1007/Chny/2024 dated 26.06.2024 by holding as under: 1007/Chny/2024 dated 26.06.2024 by holding as under:-
We have heard ld. Counsel for the assessee and ld.DR. We We have heard ld. Counsel for the assessee and ld.DR. We We have heard ld. Counsel for the assessee and ld.DR. We have perused orders of the authorities below. We find that the issue have perused orders of the authorities below. We find that the issue have perused orders of the authorities below. We find that the issue involved in the present appeals filed by t involved in the present appeals filed by the assessee is on levy of late he assessee is on levy of late fee under section 234E of the Act, for belated filing of quarterly TDS fee under section 234E of the Act, for belated filing of quarterly TDS fee under section 234E of the Act, for belated filing of quarterly TDS returns beyond prescribed date and this issue is squarely covered by returns beyond prescribed date and this issue is squarely covered by returns beyond prescribed date and this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of M/s.True Blue Voice India Private Limited vs. CCIT & Ors (WP Nos. e Voice India Private Limited vs. CCIT & Ors (WP Nos. e Voice India Private Limited vs. CCIT & Ors (WP Nos. 2700 & 2703 of 2022) dated 09.10.2023 and held as under:- 2700 & 2703 of 2022) dated 09.10.2023 and held as under: 2700 & 2703 of 2022) dated 09.10.2023 and held as under:
‘’10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section ‘’10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section ‘’10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case present case is as to whether the late fee can be imposed under is as to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement of TDS Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement of TDS Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement of TDS , 3064, 3061 & 3065 , 3064, 3061 & 3065/Chny/2025 (AYs 2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014 15 & 2014-15-20) PRAKASHCHAND Vs ITO Vs ITO, TDS Ward-1 under Section 200A of the Act for the subject assessment under Section 200A of the Act for the subject assessment under Section 200A of the Act for the subject assessment years?
On considering the submissions of both the learned counsel 11. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsel 11. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and while rea and while reading Section 234E of the Act, it appears that the ding Section 234E of the Act, it appears that the Department/respondents can impose the late fee for the Department/respondents can impose the late fee for the Department/respondents can impose the late fee for the circumstances mentioned under Section 234E of the Act with circumstances mentioned under Section 234E of the Act with circumstances mentioned under Section 234E of the Act with effect from 01.07.2012, but not when they process the TDS effect from 01.07.2012, but not when they process the TDS effect from 01.07.2012, but not when they process the TDS under Section 200A of the Act. In under Section 200A of the Act. In the Finance Bill, 2015, Section the Finance Bill, 2015, Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was introduced, which reads as follows: 200A(1)(c) of the Act was introduced, which reads as follows: 200A(1)(c) of the Act was introduced, which reads as follows:
“200A. Processing of statements of tax deducted at “200A. Processing of statements of tax deducted at “200A. Processing of statements of tax deducted at source.— — (1) ...................... (a)...................... (b)........................ (c) the fee, if any, shall be computed in (c) the fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E;” accordance with the provisions of section 234E;”
Further, the objects and reasons for introduction of Section 12. Further, the objects and reasons for introduction of Section 12. Further, the objects and reasons for introduction of Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act are as follows: 200A(1)(c) of the Act are as follows:
“Rationalisation of provisions relating to Tax Deduction at “Rationalisation of provisions relating to Tax Deduction at “Rationalisation of provisions relating to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) and Tax Collection at Source (TCS) Source (TDS) and Tax Collection at Source (TCS) Source (TDS) and Tax Collection at Source (TCS) Under Chapter XVII Under Chapter XVII-B of the Act, a person is required to B of the Act, a person is required to deduct tax on certain specified payment at the specified deduct tax on certain specified payment at the specified deduct tax on certain specified payment at the specified rate if the payment exceeds the specified threshold. The rate if the payment exceeds the specified threshold. The rate if the payment exceeds the specified threshold. The person deducting tax (‘the deductor person deducting tax (‘the deductor’) is required to file a ’) is required to file a quarterly Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) statement quarterly Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) statement quarterly Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) statement containing the details of deduction of tax made during the containing the details of deduction of tax made during the containing the details of deduction of tax made during the quarter by the prescribed due date. Similarly, under quarter by the prescribed due date. Similarly, under quarter by the prescribed due date. Similarly, under Chapter XVII Chapter XVII-BB of the Act, a person is required to collect BB of the Act, a person is required to collect tax on ce tax on certain specified receipts at the specified rates. rtain specified receipts at the specified rates. The person collecting tax (‘the collector’) also is required The person collecting tax (‘the collector’) also is required The person collecting tax (‘the collector’) also is required to file a quarterly Tax Collection at Source (TCS) to file a quarterly Tax Collection at Source (TCS) to file a quarterly Tax Collection at Source (TCS) statement containing the details of collection of tax made statement containing the details of collection of tax made statement containing the details of collection of tax made during the quarter by the prescribed during the quarter by the prescribed due date. In order to due date. In order to provide effective deterrence against delay in furnishing of provide effective deterrence against delay in furnishing of provide effective deterrence against delay in furnishing of TDS/TCS statement, the Finance Act, 2012 inserted TDS/TCS statement, the Finance Act, 2012 inserted TDS/TCS statement, the Finance Act, 2012 inserted section 234E in the Act to provide for levy of fee for late section 234E in the Act to provide for levy of fee for late section 234E in the Act to provide for levy of fee for late furnishing of TDS/TCS statement. The levy of fee under furnishing of TDS/TCS statement. The levy of fee under furnishing of TDS/TCS statement. The levy of fee under section section 234E of the Act has proved to be an effective tool 234E of the Act has proved to be an effective tool in improving the compliance in respect of timely in improving the compliance in respect of timely in improving the compliance in respect of timely submission of TDS/TCS statement by the deductor or submission of TDS/TCS statement by the deductor or submission of TDS/TCS statement by the deductor or collector. collector.
, 3064, 3061 & 3065 , 3064, 3061 & 3065/Chny/2025 (AYs 2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014 15 & 2014-15-20) PRAKASHCHAND Vs ITO Vs ITO, TDS Ward-1 Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 inserted section 200A in the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 inserted section 200A in the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 inserted section 200A in the Act which provides for processing of T Act which provides for processing of TDS statements for DS statements for determining the amount payable or refundable to the determining the amount payable or refundable to the determining the amount payable or refundable to the deductor. However, as section 243E was inserted after deductor. However, as section 243E was inserted after deductor. However, as section 243E was inserted after the insertion of section 200A in the Act, the existing the insertion of section 200A in the Act, the existing the insertion of section 200A in the Act, the existing provisions of section 200A of the Act does not provide for provisions of section 200A of the Act does not provide for provisions of section 200A of the Act does not provide for determination of f determination of fee payable under section 234E of the ee payable under section 234E of the Act at the time of processing of TDS statements. It is, Act at the time of processing of TDS statements. It is, Act at the time of processing of TDS statements. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the provisions of section therefore, proposed to amend the provisions of section therefore, proposed to amend the provisions of section 200A of the Act so as to enable computation of fee 200A of the Act so as to enable computation of fee 200A of the Act so as to enable computation of fee payable under section 234E of the Act at the time of payable under section 234E of the Act at the time of payable under section 234E of the Act at the time of proc processing of TDS statement under section 200A of the essing of TDS statement under section 200A of the Act. Act.
Currently, the provisions of sub Currently, the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 200 section (3) of section 200 of the Act enable the deductor to furnish TDS correction of the Act enable the deductor to furnish TDS correction of the Act enable the deductor to furnish TDS correction statement and consequently, section 200A of the Act statement and consequently, section 200A of the Act statement and consequently, section 200A of the Act allows processing of the TDS c allows processing of the TDS correction statement. orrection statement. However, currently, there does not exist any provision for However, currently, there does not exist any provision for However, currently, there does not exist any provision for allowing a collector to file correction statement in respect allowing a collector to file correction statement in respect allowing a collector to file correction statement in respect of TCS statement which has been furnished. It is, of TCS statement which has been furnished. It is, of TCS statement which has been furnished. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the provisions of section therefore, proposed to amend the provisions of section therefore, proposed to amend the provisions of section 206C of th 206C of the Act so as to allow the collector to furnish TCS e Act so as to allow the collector to furnish TCS correction statement. correction statement.
Currently, there does not exist any provision in the Act to Currently, there does not exist any provision in the Act to Currently, there does not exist any provision in the Act to enable processing of the TCS statement filed by the enable processing of the TCS statement filed by the enable processing of the TCS statement filed by the collector as available for processing of TDS statement. collector as available for processing of TDS statement. collector as available for processing of TDS statement. As the mechani As the mechanism of TCS statement is similar to TDS sm of TCS statement is similar to TDS statement, it is proposed to insert a provision in the Act statement, it is proposed to insert a provision in the Act statement, it is proposed to insert a provision in the Act for processing of TCS statements on the line of existing for processing of TCS statements on the line of existing for processing of TCS statements on the line of existing provisions for processing of TDS statement contained in provisions for processing of TDS statement contained in provisions for processing of TDS statement contained in section 200A of the Act. The proposed provision shall section 200A of the Act. The proposed provisio section 200A of the Act. The proposed provisio also incorporate the mechanism for computation of fee also incorporate the mechanism for computation of fee also incorporate the mechanism for computation of fee payable under section 234E of the Act.” payable under section 234E of the Act.”
A reading of the above makes it clear that since no 13. A reading of the above makes it clear that since no 13. A reading of the above makes it clear that since no mechanism was available for determination of late fee payable mechanism was available for determination of late fee payable mechanism was available for determination of late fee payable under Section 234E of the Act at th under Section 234E of the Act at the time of processing TDS e time of processing TDS statements. Thus it was proposed to amend the provisions of statements. Thus it was proposed to amend the provisions of statements. Thus it was proposed to amend the provisions of Section 200A of the Act, so as to enable the computation of fee Section 200A of the Act, so as to enable the computation of fee Section 200A of the Act, so as to enable the computation of fee payable under Section 234E of the Act at the time of processing payable under Section 234E of the Act at the time of processing payable under Section 234E of the Act at the time of processing of TDS statement under Section 200A of he A of TDS statement under Section 200A of he Act. Thus, the said ct. Thus, the said sub-Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was came to be inserted with Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was came to be inserted with Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was came to be inserted with effect from 01.06.2015. effect from 01.06.2015.
, 3064, 3061 & 3065 , 3064, 3061 & 3065/Chny/2025 (AYs 2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014 15 & 2014-15-20) PRAKASHCHAND Vs ITO Vs ITO, TDS Ward-1 14. Now the dispute is with regard to the assessment years 14. Now the dispute is with regard to the assessment years 14. Now the dispute is with regard to the assessment years 2012- 13, 2013 13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and the applicability of Section 15 and the applicability of Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act for 200A(1)(c) of the Act for relevant assessment years. There is no relevant assessment years. There is no dispute on the aspect that the TDS statement was filed under dispute on the aspect that the TDS statement was filed under dispute on the aspect that the TDS statement was filed under Section 200A of the Act and the respondent had also issued the Section 200A of the Act and the respondent had also issued the Section 200A of the Act and the respondent had also issued the intimation under Section 200A of the Act, which means the intimation under Section 200A of the Act, which means the intimation under Section 200A of the Act, which means the respondents have processed the retu respondents have processed the returns under Section 200A of rns under Section 200A of the Act. When the respondent had started to process the returns the Act. When the respondent had started to process the returns the Act. When the respondent had started to process the returns of the petitioner under Section 200A of the Act, obviously they of the petitioner under Section 200A of the Act, obviously they of the petitioner under Section 200A of the Act, obviously they have to follow the requirements under Section 200A of the Act. have to follow the requirements under Section 200A of the Act. have to follow the requirements under Section 200A of the Act. Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was intro Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was introduced with effect from duced with effect from 01.06.2015. A reading of the objects and reasons of the same 01.06.2015. A reading of the objects and reasons of the same 01.06.2015. A reading of the objects and reasons of the same makes it clear that since no mechanism was available, Section makes it clear that since no mechanism was available, Section makes it clear that since no mechanism was available, Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was introduced for imposing late fee for 200A(1)(c) of the Act was introduced for imposing late fee for 200A(1)(c) of the Act was introduced for imposing late fee for the delay in filing statement of TDS. Therefore, from the the delay in filing statement of TDS. Therefore the delay in filing statement of TDS. Therefore introduction of the said Sub introduction of the said Sub-Section it is clear that prior to the Section it is clear that prior to the same, though Section 234E of the Act was introduced with effect same, though Section 234E of the Act was introduced with effect same, though Section 234E of the Act was introduced with effect from 01.07.2012, the Authorities were not empowered to impose from 01.07.2012, the Authorities were not empowered to impose from 01.07.2012, the Authorities were not empowered to impose the late fee while processing the statement of TDS under the late fee while processing the statement of TDS u the late fee while processing the statement of TDS u Section 200A of the Act. Section 200A of the Act.
The learned counsel for the respondent advanced his 15. The learned counsel for the respondent advanced his 15. The learned counsel for the respondent advanced his arguments on the aspect of the imposition of late fee by applying arguments on the aspect of the imposition of late fee by applying arguments on the aspect of the imposition of late fee by applying Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act retrospectively. This Court is not in Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act retrospectively. This Court is not in Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act retrospectively. This Court is not in agreement with the said submissions agreement with the said submissions of the respondent. Since, of the respondent. Since, there was no provision for imposing the late fee under Section there was no provision for imposing the late fee under Section there was no provision for imposing the late fee under Section 234E of the Act while filing and processing the TDS returns 234E of the Act while filing and processing the TDS returns 234E of the Act while filing and processing the TDS returns under Section 200A of the Act, clause (c) to Sub under Section 200A of the Act, clause (c) to Sub-Section (1) to Section (1) to Section 200A was introduced with effect fr Section 200A was introduced with effect from 01.07.2012. om 01.07.2012. Therefore, the aforesaid submission made by the learned Therefore, the aforesaid submission made by the learned Therefore, the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is rejected by this Court. counsel for the respondent is rejected by this Court.
Further it was stated by the respondent that they have no 16. Further it was stated by the respondent that they have no 16. Further it was stated by the respondent that they have no power to waive the late fee and only the Commissioner of power to waive the late fee and only the Commissioner of power to waive the late fee and only the Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax is empowered to pass the revised order by proper is empowered to pass the revised order by proper application of provision of Section 264C of the Act. application of provision of Section 264C of the Act.
In view of the above, it is made clear that the respondent 17. In view of the above, it is made clear that the respondent 17. In view of the above, it is made clear that the respondent had had imposed the late fee only under Section 234E of the Act had had imposed the late fee only under Section 234E of the Act had had imposed the late fee only under Section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2 for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2015 2014, 2015-2015. However, Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was not introduced However, Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was not introduced However, Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any during the said assessment years. In the absence of any during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under Section 200A of the Act, when they have provisions under Section 200A of the Act, when they have provisions under Section 200A of the Act, when they have processed the application for TDS under Section 200A, no late processed the application for TDS under Section 200A, processed the application for TDS under Section 200A, fee can be imposed under Section 234E. Hence, in such view of fee can be imposed under Section 234E. Hence, in such view of fee can be imposed under Section 234E. Hence, in such view of 3064, 3061 & 3065 , 3064, 3061 & 3065/Chny/2025 (AYs 2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014 15 & 2014-15-20) PRAKASHCHAND Vs ITO Vs ITO, TDS Ward-1 the matter, this Court feels that the impugned orders are liable to the matter, this Court feels that the impugned orders are liable to the matter, this Court feels that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside’’ be set aside’’ The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal also in the case of ordinate Bench of the Tribunal also in the case of ordinate Bench of the Tribunal also in the case of M/s.M.F.TextilesPvt.Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No M/s.M.F.TextilesPvt.Ltd. Vs. ACIT in & 579/Chny/2021 s. 578 & 579/Chny/2021 dated 24.02.2022 had considered an identical issue in light of dated 24.02.2022 had considered an identical issue in light of dated 24.02.2022 had considered an identical issue in light of provisions of section 234E of the Act and also amendment to section provisions of section 234E of the Act and also amendment to section provisions of section 234E of the Act and also amendment to section 200A by Finance Act, 2015 Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and held that in absence held that in absence of enabling provision of enabling provision under section 200A of the Act, the Assessing of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee Officer cannot levy late fee under section 234E of the Act f of the Act for belated filing of quarterly TDS return for period prior to 01.06.2015. filing of quarterly TDS return for period prior to 01.06.2015. filing of quarterly TDS return for period prior to 01.06.2015.
Inthe present appeals, on perusal of the facts, we find that the Inthe present appeals, on perusal of the facts, we find that the Inthe present appeals, on perusal of the facts, we find that the assessment years involved are prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, we are assessment years involved are prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, we are assessment years involved are prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the late fee c of the considered view that the late fee charged by the Assessing harged by the Assessing Officer under section 234E section 234E of the Act, while processing quarterly TDS of the Act, while processing quarterly TDS return under section 200A section 200A of the Act, is without any aut of the Act, is without any authority and invalid. Hence, by respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble invalid. Hence, by respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble invalid. Hence, by respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of M/s. True Blue Voice Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of M/s. True Blue Voice Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of M/s. True Blue Voice India Private Limited (supra) and Co India Private Limited (supra) and Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ordinate Bench in the case of M/s.M.F.TextilesPvt.Ltd (supra), M/s.M.F.TextilesPvt.Ltd (supra), we are of the considered view that the are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee while processing of TDS return Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee while processing of TDS return Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee while processing of TDS return under section 200A section 200A of the Act upto the financial year 2014 of the Act upto the financial year 2014-15. Since, late fee charged in the pr late fee charged in the present case pertaining to the financial years esent case pertaining to the financial years 2012-2013 and 2013 2013 and 2013-14, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the 14, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the late fee charged under late fee charged under section 234E of the Act in the intimation issued of the Act in the intimation issued under section 200A section 200A of the Act for the processing of quarterly TDS of the Act for the processing of quarterly TDS return filed by the assessee. return filed by the assessee. In the result, all six these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, all six these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. In the result, all six these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
7. In the present appeals, on perusal of the In the present appeals, on perusal of the facts, we find that facts, we find that the assessment years involved are prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, the assessment years involved are prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, the assessment years involved are prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the late fee charged by the we are of the considered view that the late fee charged by the we are of the considered view that the late fee charged by the Assessing Officer u/s.234E Assessing Officer u/s.234E of the Act, while processing quarterly of the Act, while processing quarterly TDS return under section 200A section 200A of the Act, is without any authority of the Act, is without any authority and invalid. Hence, by respectfully following the decisions of the and invalid. Hence, by respectfully following the decisions of the and invalid. Hence, by respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Sri Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Sri Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Sri , 3064, 3061 & 3065 , 3064, 3061 & 3065/Chny/2025 (AYs 2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014 15 & 2014-15-20) PRAKASHCHAND Vs ITO Vs ITO, TDS Ward-1 Rujula International (supra) and Co Rujula International (supra) and Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ench in the case of M/s.Gopuram Enterprises Private Limited Gopuram Enterprises Private Limited (supra), we are of the we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee while considered view that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee while considered view that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee while processing of TDS return u/s.200A processing of TDS return u/s.200A of the Act upto the financial year of the Act upto the financial year 2014-15. Since, late fee charged i 15. Since, late fee charged in the present case pertaining to n the present case pertaining to the financial years 2013 the financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15, we direct the Assessing 15, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the late fee charged u/s.234E Officer to delete the late fee charged u/s.234E of the Act in the of the Act in the intimation issued u/s.200A intimation issued u/s.200A of the Act for the processing of quarterly of the Act for the processing of quarterly TDS return filed by the assessee. e assessee.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18th day of December, 202 Order pronounced in the open court on day of December, 2025 at Chennai.