TANJORE PALACE DEVASTANAM,THANJAVUR vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, BANGALORE

No.3 of 2020, we condone the delay of 2 days in all these appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits.

::3 :: ITA Nos.:549 & 550, 551 to 554 & 555 to 558/Chny/2021 u/s.200A of the Act. During the processing of the TDS return, the fees was charged by the learned Assessing Officer u/s.234E of the Act. On the basis of the demand, the Assessee filed a rectification petition u/s.154 of the Act by considering the judicial directions of different courts on the basis of the provisions prior to 01.06.2015 related to Finance Bill 2015. The learned Assessing Officer rejected the rectification petition u/s.154 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) for considering the rectification application filed u/s.154 of the Act. However, the learned CIT(A) had passed the order while rejecting the Assessee’s plea / arguments. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT].

::4 :: ITA Nos.:549 & 550, 551 to 554 & 555 to 558/Chny/2021 referred to the judgement and made an analysis of the order of the Tribunal in the case M/s. M.F. Textiles Private Limited, Chennai Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad bearing & 579/Chny/2021, pronounced on 24.02.2022. The relevant paragraph of the said order is extracted as under:

“In the present appeals, on perusal of the facts, we find that the Assessment Years involved are prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the late fee charged by the Assessing Officer under section 234E of the Act, while processing quarterly TDS return under section 200A of the Act is without any authority and invalid. Hence, by respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka), we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee while processing of TDS return under section 200A of the Act upto the Financial Year 2014-2015. Since, late fee charged in the present case pertaining to the Financial Year 2013-2014, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the ::5 :: ITA Nos.:549 & 550, 551 to 554 & 555 to 558/Chny/2021 late fee charged under section 234E of the Act in the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act for the processing of quarterly TDS return filed by the Assessee.”

5.1. Late fee u/s.234E is levied for default period in filing the TDS statement / return even for the period prior to 01.06.2015. The Section 234E of the Act is a charging section. The fee are charged automatically and so there is no question of accepting the rectification u/s.154 of the Act.

So, he relied on the order of the learned CIT(A).

5.2. Mr. Sridhar, the learned Counsel of the Assessee vehemently argued and mentioned that the mistake of law can be rectified. During the appeal proceedings, the ::6 :: ITA Nos.:549 & 550, 551 to 554 & 555 to 558/Chny/2021 opportunity of hearing was not granted and he requested for remanding back the issue for further adjudication by considering the provisions of the judicial statute.

DETAILS OF PROCESSING OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE [TDS] RETURNS Sl. Order Pass Date Interest Filing No. Year Fee u/s.234E Rs. 20th October, 2015 [1] I.T.A. No.549/Chny/2021 2013-2014 26,080-00 2nd November, 2015 [2] I.T.A. No.550/Chny/2021 2013-2014 36,654-00 13th July, 2018 [3] I.T.A. No.551/Chny/2021 2014-2015 45,702-00 13th July, 2018 [4] I.T.A. No.552/Chny/2021 2014-2015 33,633-00 13th July, 2018 [5] I.T.A. No.553/Chny/2021 2014-2015 37,175-00 13th July, 2018 [6] I.T.A. No.554/Chny/2021 2013-2014 87,686-00 13th July, 2018 [7] I.T.A. No.555/Chny/2021 2015-2016 35,164-00 13th July, 2018 [8] I.T.A. No.556/Chny/2021 2015-2016 27,588-00 13th July, 2018 [9] I.T.A. No.557/Chny/2021 2015-2016 62,921-00 13th July, 2018 [10] I.T.A. No.558/Chny/2021 2015-2016 37,199-00

::7 :: ITA Nos.:549 & 550, 551 to 554 & 555 to 558/Chny/2021 of the Act was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in favour of the Assessee as the rule of consistency is applicable in this case. In the case of Radhasoami Satsang Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [1992] 60 Taxmann.com 248 / 193 ITR 321 (SC) it is held that the rule of consistency should not create anomaly.

Respectful observation of the order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India reported in [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka) it is held that the provisions of Section 200A(1)(c)(d) & (f) of the Act have come into force only w.e.f.01.06.2015 and hence the authority concerned is not to compute and determine the fee u/s.234E in respect of the assessment year of the earlier periods and the return filed for the said respective assessment years, i.e. all the assessment years and the returns prior to 01.06.2015. So, the fees should not be levied prior to 01.06.2015. The Assessee had filed a rectification petition and without giving a reasonable opportunity, the appeal was rejected. The specific observation is required before redressal of the issue. The period of filing of the return and the period of ::8 :: ITA Nos.:549 & 550, 551 to 554 & 555 to 558/Chny/2021 deduction of tax, is the issue which was prior to 01.06.2015, for levying fee u/s.234E of the Act. Accordingly, the matter is setting aside before the learned CIT(A) for further adjudication, and directed to pass the order considering the observations of the Bench, as mentioned above. Nonetheless, the Assessee should get a reasonable opportunity for redressal of its grievances before the Authority.