ARIGNAR ANNA POWERLOOM WEAVERS CO-OP. P & S SOCIETY LTD.,SALEM vs. ITO TDS WARD, SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2871/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 February 2020AY 2014-154 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the AO cannot levy fees under Section 234E while processing a statement under Section 200A, they can pass a separate order for such levy. Since the AO had now passed a separate order for the statutory levy of fees under Section 234E, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the levy of fees under Section 234E for the assessment year 2014-15. In a prior round of litigation, the CIT(A) had deleted the fees levied under Section 234E, but the intimation under Section 200A was not set aside.

What were the issues?

Whether fees under Section 234E can be levied by the AO through a separate order when the initial intimation under Section 200A was set aside only for the fee component.

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, ‘D’ BENCH (SMC

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN.

For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Hearing: 03.02.2020Pronounced: 03.02.2020

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem dated 29.09.2017 and pertains to the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

Shri. T. Dinesh, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is second round of litigation before this Tribunal. In the first round of litigation, the CIT(A) deleted the fees levied u/s.234E of the Act by following the order of this Tribunal in the case of G. Indhirani in 1020 & 1021/Mds/2015, dated 10.07.2015. However, no liberty was given to the Assessing Officer for passing separate order for levy of fees. Moreover, Section 271E of the Act is only a charging section and there is no machinery provision. Therefore, the AO cannot pass separate order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that intimation issued u/s.200A of the Act was already set aside by the CIT(A).

Therefore, there is no basis for levy of fees.

3.

On the contrary, the ld. Departmental Representative Shri AR.V.

Sreenivasan submitted that fee levied under Section 271E of the Act is a statutory fee for delay in filing statement required u/s.200A of the Act. In the first round of litigation, the fee was levied while processing the statement u/s.200A of the Act. The CIT(A) by following the order of this Tribunal in the case of G. Indhirani (supra) deleted the fees alone, however, intimation stands as it is. Therefore contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is not correct.

More judgments on Section 234E

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →