WASIVERHMAN CHOWDHARY,THANE vs. DCIT, CPC, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6923/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 January 2020AY 2014-153 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 demand for fee under Section 234E was without authority of law as the amendment to Section 200A, which allows for computation of such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015, and the TDS in question was deducted prior to that date.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in iron and steel trading, filed its TDS statement for the first quarter of AY 2014-15 significantly beyond the due date. Consequently, interest and late fees were levied by the CPC-TDS, which were affirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether late fees under Section 234E are leviable for TDS deducted prior to the effective date of the amendment to Section 200A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Pawan Singh (JM) & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(A.M.)

For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar

O R D E R

PER PAWAN SINGH, JM :

1.

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-1, Mumbai dated 24-09-2018 for assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- “(a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the genuine reason of appellant representative. (c) The order of the CIT(A) in this case is based upon surmises and conjectures and far removed from the facts of the case.

2. The assessee is in trading of business of iron and steel. The assessee filed his quarterly TDS statement for first quarter for AY 2014-15 Wasivrehman Ch. beyond due date of furnishing statement of TDS. Due date for first quarter was 15.07.2013. However the assessee filed / furnished return / statement on 11.12.2014. The DCIT/CPC-TDS – Ghaziabad levied an interest/ late fee of Rs. 21,055/- vide its intimation / order dated 14.12.2014. On appeal before CIT(A), the action of the Assessing Officer / CPC TDS was affirmed. Thus, further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appal before us.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite the service of notice of hearing of the appeal. Even no application for adjournment was filed on behalf of assessee, thus, we left no option except to hear the submissions of the ld. departmental representative (DR) for the revenue and to decide the case on the basis of material on record. We have heard the submission of the Ld. DR for the revenue and perused the material available on record. The ld DR supported the order of lower authorities.

4.

The Ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. DR submits that the Ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the applicability of section 234E as well as section 200A of the Act.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute that for quarter -1, of AY 2014-15, the assessee furnished the TDS statement on 11.12.2014 instead of furnishing on or before due date i.e. 15.07.2013. The assessee paid an interest of Rs. 425/-. Admittedly, TDS was deducted prior to 01-06-2015. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs UOI reported viz (73 taxmann.com 252), wherein it was held that the amendment in section 200A has come into effect on 01.06.2015 and has 2 Wasivrehman Ch. prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for fee under section 234E can be made for TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence, the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. Similar view was taken by this bench (by same combination) in Venus Electronics And Controls Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITA No. 5073/Mum/2018 date 18.12.2019). In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find that no late fees were leviable on the assessee; therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16 -01-2020.

More judgments on Section 234E

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →