NEMICHAND RATANCHAND JAIN,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2401/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 November 2019AY 2015-167 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the late filing fee under Section 234E could be waived based on jurisdictional High Court decisions, the TDS return should not be treated as nonest for non-payment of the fee before filing. The CIT(A)'s order to treat the return as nonest was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a TDS statement late for the 4th quarter of FY 2014-15, resulting in a late filing fee of Rs. 7,600 under Section 234E. The CIT(A) granted relief on the late fee but treated the TDS return as nonest because the fee was not paid before filing.

What were the issues?

Whether a TDS return can be treated as nonest if the late filing fee is not paid prior to its submission, despite the fee itself being waived. The jurisdiction of the CIT(A) to deem a filed return as nonest.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 200A,Section 234E,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, BANGALORE BENCHES “ C ” BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.A
For Respondent: Shri M. Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Hearing: 05.11.2019Pronounced: 08.11.2019

The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Bangalore passed against the order under Section 200A and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and received intimation under Section 200A of the Act with a liability of amount payable Rs.7,600 for 4th Quarter of F.Y.2014-15 i.e. A.Y. 2015-16 and whereas Quarter 4 being Jan., 2015 to March, 2015. Further the assessee has filed TDS statement with authorities on 22.6.2015. The assessee has been filing the TDS statements regularly but due to unavoidable circumstances the TDS statement for 4th Quarter of F.Y. 2014-15 was filed with delay and late filing fee of Rs.7,600 is levied under Section 234E of the Act as per intimation under Section 200A of the Act. Aggrieved by the intimation, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT (Appeals). The appellate authority considering the grounds of appeal

, submissions and judicial decisions has granted relief in respect of late filing fees levied under Section 234E of the Act relying on the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. UOI 73 Taxmann.com 252 / 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka). But the learned Authorised Representative emphasized that the learned CIT (Appeals) having cancelled levy of late filing fees under Section 234E of the Act but however held that the assessee should pay prescribed fees before filing the TDS Return. Since the assessee has not paid the late filing fees prescribed before filing of TDS Returns, therefore the TDS Returns filed by the assessee are treated as nonest. The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that the learned CIT (Appeals) has no jurisdiction or power to treat the TDS Returns as nonest and relied on judicial decision and prayed for allowing the grounds of appeal of the assessee Contra, the ld. DR supported the orders of learned CIT (Appeals) on the disputed issue.

4. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima facie, the sole disputed issue being the learned CIT (Appeals) treated the TDS returns filed by the assessee as nonest as there is no payment of prescribed fees along with the filing of TDS Returns. The learned Authorised Representative brought to the knowledge of the Bench on the similar issue, co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Puja Daga Vs. ACIT in to 2665/Bang/2018 Dt.19.03.2019, has dealt and granted relief. We found that the disputed issue in the present case is identical and similar to the issue dealt by co- ordinate Bench and we consider proper to consider the observations of co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal at pages 4 to 6 of the order which read as under :

More judgments on Section 200A

All 4,379 judgments and leading authorities on Section 200A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →