LAXMI OIL ENGINES PVT.LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC -TDS, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 376/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 July 20224 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) allowing the levy of fee under Section 234E was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, it could not be applied to defaults committed prior to this date, making the levy in this case unjustified.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the charging of interest under Section 234E for delayed furnishing of TDS statements for various quarters of assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had upheld the levy of this interest.

What were the issues?

Whether interest under Section 234E can be levied for defaults in furnishing TDS statements prior to the amendment of Section 200A(1)(c) which enabled such levy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

1.

All these appeals filed by the assessee against the common order dated 17-12-2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolhapur [‘CIT(A)’] upholding the charging of interest u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of above mentioned Quarters of the assessment years.

2.

Since, the issues raised in all the appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of Ld. DR, we proceed to hear all the appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

3.

First, we shall take up appeal of assessee in for A.Y. 2012-13 (Q2).

4.

The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in upholding the levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act for default in furnishing TDS statement for Quarter 2 of A.Y. 2012-13 in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5.

Heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We note that fee for default in furnishing the TDS statements have been imposed on the assessee u/s. 234E of the Act for the 2nd quarter of the financial year 2011-12 (A.Y. 2012-13). Section 200A deals with processing of TDS statements of tax deducted at source and Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A was inserted by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01-06-2015 providing for the levy of fee u/s.234E of the Act. In such circumstances, levy of such fee u/s.234E can be levied only after 01-06-2015 for the default committed by the assessee. We find that the period covered in the present subject appeal before us is Quarter 2 of financial year 2011-12 (A.Y. 2012-13). Therefore, we hold that the amendment by insertion of Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of section 200A of the Act is not applicable, therefore, the order of CIT(A) is not justified and it is set aside.

6.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.

7.

We find that the issue raised in the appeals and the facts in to 380/PUN/2019 are identical to ITA No. 374/PUN/2019 except the variance in amount and period. Since, the facts in ITA Nos. 375 to 380/PUN/2019 are similar to ITA No. 374/PUN/2019, the findings given by us while deciding the grounds of appeal of assessee in ITA No. 374/PUN/2019 would mutatis mutandis apply to ITA Nos. 375 to 380/PUN/2019, as well. All the appeals of assessee are allowed, accordingly.

8.

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07th July, 2022.

More judgments on Section 234E

All 4,792 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234E →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →