T KOLLANDAIVELU & COMPANY,SALEM vs. ITO TDS WARD, SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1812/CHNY/2018Status: 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 Assessing Officer cannot levy fees under Section 234E while processing a statement under Section 200A, he can pass a separate order for the levy of such fees. The levy of fees under Section 234E is a statutory mandate.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals concern the levy of fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. In the first round of litigation, the CIT(A) had deleted the fees levied under Section 234E, but the Assessing Officer later levied the fees through a separate order.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer can levy fees under Section 234E through a separate order after the initial intimation under Section 200A was set aside regarding 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, CHENNAI,

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN

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

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.

Therefore, I heard both the appeals together and disposing off by this common order.

2.

There is a delay of 166 days in filing the appeal in 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.

3.

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 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 u/s.200A of the Act was already set aside by the CIT(A). Therefore, there is no basis for levy of fees.

4.

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.

5.

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 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.

6.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in 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.

More judgments on Section 234E

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →