Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals concern the levy of interest under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act for delayed filing of TDS quarterly returns for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17. The returns were processed by the CPC, and the assessee's rectification applications and appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC were unsuccessful.
Held
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(c) empowering the levy of fee under Section 234E is prospective from 01.06.2015. Therefore, fee u/s.234E can only be levied for defaults committed after 01.06.2015. Appeals for returns processed before this date are allowed.
Key Issues
Whether the levy of interest under Section 234E for delay in filing TDS returns is applicable retrospectively or only prospectively from the amendment date of 01.06.2015.
Sections Cited
234E, 250, 200A, 154, 147
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, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Shrikrishna Laxminarayan Thakur Group आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH:
This batch of 13 appeals at the instance of assessee are directed against the different orders dated 09.11.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The only issue raised in these appeals is the charging of interest u/s.234E for the quarters arising in Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17.
Identical grounds have been raised by assessee in all these appeals. We therefore proceed to dispose of these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
Brief facts common to these appeals are that TDS returns for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 corresponding to respective quarters captioned above were filed belatedly. The same were processed by Central Processing Cell (in short “CPC”) u/s.200A levying fee u/s.234E of the Act. The assessee filed rectification applications u/s.154 of the Act for removal of late fee u/s.234E but failed to succeed. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal(s) before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC but failed to get any relief. Now the assessee is in appeal(s) before the Tribunal.
Shrikrishna Laxminarayan Thakur Group 4. Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders passed by the lower authorities and vehemently argued for confirming the late fee levied u/s.234E of the Act.
We have heard both the parties and perused the records placed before us. The solitary issue in this batch of appeals is against the levy of fee u/s.234E of the Act by CPC for delay in filing the TDS quarterly returns and Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC confirming such levy of fee u/s.234E for filing the Quarterly returns after the due date.
We observe that the issue of levy of fee u/s.234E is no more res integra by virtue of several decisions rendered by this Tribunal on this very issue. It shows that the late fee u/s.234E has been imposed for the delay in furnishing the statements for quarters, in the returns processed u/s.200A of the Act prior to 01.06.2015 and post 01.06.2015. As regards the fate of fees levied u/s.234E of the Act for the returns filed and processed before 01.06.2015, we find the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal after considering the judicial pronouncements have been taking a consistent view that the amendment brought in Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 under Section 200A (clause (c)] of the Act is prospective in nature thereby empowering the Revenue authorities to charge fee u/s.234E of the Act only after 01.06.2015. In that view of the matter, Revenue authorities are empowered to impose such late fee Shrikrishna Laxminarayan Thakur Group u/s.234E only for the default committed after 01.06.2015 and not prior to that. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Olari Little Flower Kuries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others (2022) 440 ITR 26 (Kerala) has affirmed the non-imposition of fee for the period prior to 01.06.2015. Similar view has been taken in Jiji Varghese VS. ITO(TDS) & Ors. (2022) 443 ITR 267 (Ker) holding that no fee u/s.234E can be imposed for the periods of the respective A.Ys. prior to 1st June, 2015. Similar view was also taken by this Tribunal in the case of Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe Vs. ITO (TDS), Pune in to 1309/PUN/2023, dated 29.02.2024. Thus, it is seen that the issue raised in the following appeals is covered in favour of the assessee as the returns u/s.200A(c) were processed before 01.06.2015. Sl. No. ITA No(s). Asst. Quar Form Order date Year ter 1 ITA Nos.2299/PUN/2024 2013-14 Q4 26Q 20.01.2014 2 2014-15 Q1 26Q 15.03.2014 26Q 3 2014-15 Q2 15.03.2014 26Q 4 2014-15 Q3 15.03.2014 5 2014-15 Q4 26Q 11.10.2014 26Q 6 2013-14 Q3 20.01.2014 26Q 7 2013-14 Q2 20.01.2014 26Q 8 2013-14 Q2 20.01.2014 Shrikrishna Laxminarayan Thakur Group
Following the precedent, we overturn the impugned orders on this sole issue and allow the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all these eight appeals.
8. So far as the following appeals corresponding to respective quarter are concerned, the late fee u/s.234E has been imposed for the delay in furnishing the statements and the returns have been processed u/s.200A of the Act after 01.06.2015. In light of our observation above, it is held that penalty u/s.234E is leviable since amendment brought in Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 under Section 200A (clause (c)] of the Act is prospective in nature and Revenue authorities are empowered to levy penalty u/s.234E. However, penalty u/s.234E has to be computed from 01.06.2015 till the processing of the return for which necessary calculation to be made at the end of the concerned Revenue authority. The details of appeals whose returns have been processed after 01.06.2015 are given below :
Sl. No. ITA No(s). Asst. Quar Form Order date Year ter 1 2015-16 Q1 26Q 27.10.2015 2 2015-16 Q4 26Q 28.10.2015 26Q 3 2015-16 Q3 24.10.2015 Shrikrishna Laxminarayan Thakur Group 26Q 4 2015-16 Q2 24.10.2015 5 2016-17 Q1 26Q 25.08.2016 Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in respect of the above-mentioned five appeals are partly allowed.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as per terms indicated above.