Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI,
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN
Both the appeals of the assessee are directed against the common order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem dated 29.09.2017 and pertains to the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15.
2 I.T.A. No. 2874/17 & 1812/18
Therefore, I heard both the appeals together and disposing off by this
common order.
There is a delay of 166 days in filing the appeal in ITA
No.1812/CHNY/2018 before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a
petition for condonation of delay. Having heard the Ld. Counsel for the
assessee and the Ld. DR, this Tribunal finds that there was reasonable
cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal before the
stipulated time. Therefore, the delay of 166 days is condoned and the
appeal is admitted.
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 Income Tax
Act, 1961 (in short 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, the CIT(A) has not given any liberty 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
3 I.T.A. No. 2874/17 & 1812/18
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 and the Ld. Departmental
Representative, I find that this Tribunal examined the issue elaborately in
the case of G.Indhirani (supra). The CIT(A) reproduced the relevant
findings of this Tribunal. This Tribunal finds 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 this Tribunal, the CIT(A) deleted fee levied
u/s.234E of the Act alone. However, intimation issued by the AO after
processing statement other than fee stands as it is. Now, the AO had
4 I.T.A. No. 2874/17 & 1812/18
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 merit in the appeals filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos.2874/CHNY/2017 and 1812/CHNY/2018 for assessment years 2013- 2014 and 2014-2015 stand 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