SRINIVASA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT STUDIES,CHITOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,(TDS), TIRUPATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 948/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 September 2018AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for default as the assessee did not appear on the hearing date and defects in the appeals were not rectified. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer is empowered to pass a separate order for levying late filing fees.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E for multiple assessment years. The Assessing Officer passed orders under Section 154 read with Section 200A for levying these fees.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer has the power to levy late filing fees under Section 234E through a separate order. The appeal was dismissed due to non-appearance and non-rectification of defects.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 200A,Section 234E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, DR
Hearing: 05.10.2018Pronounced: 05.10.2018

PER Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

The above captioned three appeals are filed by the assessee for the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively, against the orders of the CIT(A), Tirupati, dated 27.02.2018. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 154 r.w.s 200A of the Act levying late filing fees u/s 234E of the Act for different quarters during the relevant assessment years. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeals for all the three assessment years under consideration and argued that for the purpose of section 234E none of the person is responsible for any late fees, if any, is due and not deposited along the TDS statement. CIT(A), by following the order of the Tribunal at Chennai in ITA No. 1019 to 1021/Mds/2015 for the A.Y. 2013-14 in the case of Smt. G. Indhirani and others, confirmed the order of the A.O. by holding that the Assessing Officer

is well within his limit to pass a separate order for levy of late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee is appeal before us.

3.

The Registry had noticed certain defects in the appeal and had issued the defect memo along the notice for hearing. The same was served on the assessee as per the acknowledgement received by this Tribunal. However, none appeared for the assessee on the date of hearing, i.e., today and even the defects pointed out by the Registry have not been rectified in toto. Therefore, presuming that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its case, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed for default by following the decision of the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd., (38 ITD 320) and Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480).

4.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (Smt. P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 05th October, 2018.

OKK, Sr.PS Copy to 1. Srinivasa Institute of Technology and Management Studies, Bangalore – Tirupati Bye-pass road, Murakambattu Post, Chittoor – 517127, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Tirupati – 517001. 3. CIT (A), Tirupati. 4. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupati. 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →