Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, an individual, filed TDS statements belatedly for Assessment Year 2013-14 (Financial Year 2012-13, Quarter 3). The CPC processed the TDS return and levied a late fee under Section 234E. The CIT(A) upheld this levy.
Held
The Tribunal confirmed the levy of late fee under Section 234E, stating that it can be levied even for the period prior to the 2015 amendment to Section 200A. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, which held that Section 234E, inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012, provided for such a levy at the time the impugned notices were issued.
Key Issues
Whether the levy of late fee under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS statements is justified for the period prior to 01.06.2015, when the amendment to Section 200A enabling such levy by the CPC came into effect.
Sections Cited
234E, 200A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 13.06.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.
Since identical issues are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing ITA
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. The appellant during the financial year relevant to AY 2013-14 filed the TDS statements belatedly. The CPC had processed the said TDS return for quarter 3 of the Financial Year 2012-13 and levied late fee u/s. 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Being aggrieved by the above intimation, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that in the absence of enabling provisions u/s. 200A or the Act late fee cannot be levied placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shri Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India. However, the CIT(A), placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan vs. Union of India and Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sree Narayana Guru Smaraka Sangam Upper Primary School vs. Union of India [2017] 77 taxmann.com 244 confirmed the levy of late fees.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
When the appeal was called nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR.
Parambathkandi mohammed Rafeek Mohamed 7. The solitary issue in the present appeal is whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the CPC in levying late fee u/s. 234E of the Act. Admittedly, the quarterly statement of TDS was filed belatedly. No doubt, the late fee was levied for the period prior to the amendment to section 200A of the Act, which came into effect on 01.06.2015 enabling levy of late fee by the CPC. No doubt, it is true that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shri Fatheraj Singhvi (supra) took a view that in the absence of charging provision, late fee u/s. 234E of the Act cannot be levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015, However, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Sree Narayana Guru Smaraka Sangam Upper Primary School (supra) and subsequent decision in the case of Alampally Pressure Testing C. (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2023] 57 taxmann.com 464 took a view that late fee as envisaged u/s. 234E of the Act can be levied even for the period prior to 2015 by holding that the law on the date when the impugned notices were issued provided for levy of late fee u/s. 234E, which had been inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012. Since the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is binding on us, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we confirm the levy of late u/s. 234E of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any merit n the appeal filed by the assessee.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th February, 2025.