Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH (SMC
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN.
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.
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
2 I.T.A. No. 2871/Chny/2017.
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 ITA
Nos.1019, 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.
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.
Having heard the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and the Ld.
Departmental Representative, this bench of the Tribunal found that a
Division bench of this Tribunal examined the issue elaborately in the case
of G.Indhirani (supra). The ld. CIT(A) reproduced the relevant findings of
3 I.T.A. No. 2871/Chny/2017.
this Tribunal. This Tribunal found that while processing the statement u/s.200A of the Act, the AO cannot levy any fees u/s.234E of the Act. However, he may pass a separate order u/s.234E of the Act. In view of the findings of the Division bench of the Tribunal, the CIT(A) deleted fee levied u/s.234E of the Act alone. However, intimation issued by the AO after processing other than the fees levied u/s.234E of the Act statement stands as it is. Now, the AO had levied fees u/s.234E of the Act by separate order. Levy of fee u/s.234E of the Act is a statutory mandate. It is not necessary for any appellate authority including the CIT(A) to give liberty to the AO for levy of such fees. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.2871/CHNY/2017 for the assessment year 2014-2015 stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 3rd February, 2020, at camp at Coimbatore. Sd/- (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (N.R.S. GANESAN) �याियकसद�य/Judicial Member Coimbatore, �दनांक/Dated, the 3rd February 2020. kv आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 4. आयकर आयु�त/CIT 6. गाड� फाईल/GF
4 I.T.A. No. 2871/Chny/2017.