Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a TDS statement for FY 2015-16 belatedly, leading to a late fee of Rs. 72,600/- levied by the CPC under Section 234E. The CIT(A) upheld this levy. The assessee appealed, arguing that Section 234E, as amended, was not applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015.
Held
The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which allows charging of fees under Section 234E, was introduced effective June 1, 2015. Since the assessee's TDS statement was filed and processed after this date, the late fee was rightly levied.
Key Issues
Whether late fee under Section 234E is leviable for a TDS statement filed/processed after June 1, 2015, when the amendment introducing Section 200A(1)(c) became effective from that date.
Sections Cited
234E, 250, 154, 200A, 200A(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 23.03.2021.
There was delay of 1339 days in filing the appeal , which has been condoned by the Bench vide interim order dated 19-03-2025 after considering the overall facts and substances of the case and noting that assessee has opted for VSVS. It has now been stated that the application for VSVS has been rejected by the CIT(TDS). The appeal is accordingly admitted and heard.
The assessee has raised ground of appeal as under: “A. For that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) under section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act) dated 23.03.2021 is erroneous, bad in law, and was passed ignoring the facts and merits of the case.
1. B. For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that late fee u/s 234E of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act) for a period prior to 01.06.2015 is not leviable, even in the light of the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in the case of Conceria International (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2023)(157 taxmann.com 335) C. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have seen that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the cases of Apparel Marketing and Manufacturing International v. PCIT (W.P.No.4331 of 2024 dated 12.09.2024), Lingeswara Creations v. PCIT (2024)(168 taxmann.com 383), Sri Rujula International v. PCIT (2024)(167 taxmann.com 367) and True Blue Voice India (P) Ltd. v. CCIT (TDS) (2024)(158 taxmann.com 67) held that late fee cannot be imposed u/s 234E of the Act for a period prior to 01.06.2015, while processing the application for TDS under section 200A of the Act.
D. For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that later decision will prevail over earlier decision.
E. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to seen that where two views are in existence or possible, one in favour of the assessee and the other against him, the view favourable to the assessee should be taken.”
The assessee has also raised the addition grounds of appeal, which are as under:
G. For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that section 154 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, deals with rectification and an intimation cannot be issued under the said section.
H. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noted that for a rectification to be carried out under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there should be an original order or an order already existing which may be subject to rectification u/s 154 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.”
The assessee has filed TDS statement in Form-26Q for Quarter.- 1 of Financial Year 2015-16 on 15.07.2016, the due date of which was on 15.07.2015. As there was delay of filing Form-26Q, the Centralized Processing Cell, Ghaziabad (hereinafter as “CPC”) has levied a late fee of Rs. 72,600/- u/s. 234E of the Act. The assessee challenged this levy before the Ld. CIT(A), who upheld the late fee.
At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) for the assessee submitted that the quarter involved in F.Y 2015-16 , but the charging of late fee Section 234E, in processing u/s. 200A of the Act was introduced with effect from 01.06.2015, therefore in light of the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Conceria International (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2023] 157 taxmann.com 335 (Mad.), late fee cannot be charged. The ld. AR also submitted that as per the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of True Blue Voice India (P.) Ltd. v. CCIT(TDS) [2024] 158 taxmann.com 64 (Mad), late fee cannot be imposed u/s. 234E of the Act for the period 01.06.2015 while processing the collection of TDS u/s. 200A of the Act. The Ld. AR has filed additional grounds and argued that the late fee has been issued by way of intimation u/s. 154 of the Act and there being no original order intimation, late fee cannot be charged in intimation u/s. 154 of the Act.
The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), On the other hand, has submitted that the assessee has filed statement in Form-26Q on 15.07.2016 and has subsequently corrected on 31.12.2019 and on 05.01.2020. The Ld. AR argued that the due date of filing the return was on 15.07.2015, which is after insertion of 200A(1)(c) of the Act with effect from 01.06.2015 for charging fee while processing the return after 01.06.2015 the CPC was justified to charge late fee u/s. 234E of the Act. The Ld AR submitted that the charging of fee is in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of True Blue Voice India (P.) Ltd. v. CCIT(TDS), supra.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has filed TDS statement of Quarter -1 for F.Y 2015-16 in Form-26Q on 15.07.2016 as against the due date of 15.07.2015. The assessee has filled appeal against the intimation u/s 154 dated 13-02-2020, which mentions the earlier intimation as under:
Statement type: Token Number : Communication Reference No. Order pass Date Regular 0502xxxxxxxx1665 TDS/1516/26Q/D/100019832781 15-Jul-2016 Correction * 4100xxxxxxx4000 TDS/1516/26Q/D/100036368424 31-Dec-2019 Correction* 4100xxxxxx1710 TDS/1516/26Q/D/100036411023 05-Jan-2020
The Ld AR has raised the additional ground that demand has been raised in the intimation u/s 154 and there being no original order rectification order cannot be passed. We do not agree with the submission of the Ld. AR that there was no original order for making rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. As the intimation clearly refers to the earlier order passed u/s. 200A of the Act by the CPC which has been rectified. Accordingly, the additional grounds raised are rejected.
As regards to Ground A to E, it is seen that section 200A(1)(c) of the Act charging the fee in accordance to provisions of section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS statement u/s. 200A of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2015 with effect from 1-6- 2015. The assessee has filed statement and correction statements on or after 15.06.2016 as against the due date for filling the statement of 15.07.2015. The Ld. AR has placed reliance on the case of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of True Blue Voice India (P.) Ltd. (supra), however, the Hon’ble High Court in the case has clearly held that late fee u/s. 234E of the Act can be charged where the return is filed and processed after 01.06.2015, pursuant to the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) of the Act. Since the assessee’s return was filed and processed after the said date, the late fee has been rightly levied u/s. 234E of the Act. We, therefore uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the CPC, and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 13th day of October, 2025 at Chennai.