Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR
The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate impugned orders of even date, 2.9.2016, passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals) Karnal u/s 200A for levy of fees /penalty u/s 234E for various quarters of assessment year 2013-14 and 2015-16. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, same were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. In all the appeals assessee has challenged the levy of late filing fee u/s 234E read with section 200A.
On the basis of order of CPC, fees has been levied for late filing of statement of TDS u/s 234E for various quarters. Before the Ld. CIT (A) assessee has stated that the levy of fee u/s 234E can be only charged after 1.06.2015, because provision u/s 200A for levy of such fee has been brought in the statute w.e.f. 1.6.2015. However, Ld. CIT (A) has rejected the said contention on the ground that order has been passed after 1.6.2015, therefore, fees is leviable.
Before us Ld. DR has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Biswajit Das vs Union of India 413 ITR 92 and also judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mr. Rashmikant Kundalia vs Union of India and Writ petition No. 771 of 2014 and submitted that the levy of fee u/s 234E is automatic wherever there is a delay in filing of statement of tax at source.
After considering the impugned orders, we find there are slight delay in filing of statement of TDS deducted with regard to various quarters for the financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The demand has been raised by the department u/s 200 in terms of failure to comply with section 200A which deals with the processing of statement of tax deducted at source u/s 200. First of all, sub section 3 of section 200 provides that the person deducting any sum in accordance with provision of chapter XVII shall after paying the tax deducted to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time and prepare such statement for such period as may be prescribed. Provision of section 200A provides that where the statement of tax deduction at source has been made by the person deducting any sum u/s 200, then such statement shall be processed in the manner given therein. Clause (c) of section 200A has been substituted by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015 which reads as under:- “(c) the fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E;”
Fee for default u/s 234E provides that, when a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed u/s 200(3), then that person shall be liable to pay fee in the manner provided therein. Thus, fee u/s 234E is leviable if the statement is not filed as prescribed u/s 200(3) which in turn provides that the statement to be filed after the payment of tax to the prescribed authority. The relevant rule 31A (4A) provides that for filing of the ‘challan cum statement’ within seven days from the date of deduction. Now here in this case the demand has been raised purely on the ground that statement has not been furnished for the tax deduction at source. The relevant provision of section 200(3) read with rule 31A (4A) only refers to filing of ‘challan cum statement’ after the tax has been paid. The word “challan” in the said rule indicates that the tax must stand paid and that is how form 26QB is generated. Thus, here in this case, it cannot be held that there is any violation of section 200(3). In any case, the levy of fee u/s 200A in accordance with the provision of section 234E has come into the statute w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Since the challan and statement has been filed much prior to this date, therefore, no such tax can be levied u/s 200A. This has been clarified and held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors vs. Union of India reported in (2016) 289 CTR 0602, wherein the lordship had made following observations :- “14. We may now deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The first contention for assailing the legality and validity of the intimation under Section 200A was that, the provision of Section 200A(1)(c), (d) and (f) have come into force only with effect from 1.6.2015 and hence, there was no authority or competence or jurisdiction on the part of the concerned Officer or the Department to compute and determine the fee under Section 234E in respect of the assessment year of the earlier period and the return filed for the said respective assessment years namely all assessment years and the returns prior to 1.6.2015. It was submitted that, when no express authority was conferred by the statute under Section 200A prior to 1.6.2015 for computation of any fee under Section 234E nor the determination thereof, the demand or the intimation for the previous period or previous year prior to 1.6.2015 could not have been made.” 4