GENUS CONSORTIUM,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 88/JPR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 March 20174 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 Section 234E provides for a fee for late filing of TDS statements, which is a privilege for the deductor. The Bombay High Court's decision was considered and found to be applicable.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the orders confirming late filing fees charged under Section 234E of the IT Act. The assessee argued that there was no provision for such a fee during the relevant period. The Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court judgment.

What were the issues?

Whether late filing fee under Section 234E is legally leviable when the TDS statement is filed late, and if there was a valid provision for charging such fee during the assessment year.

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, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 88, 89 & 90/JP/2017

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Mulchandani (Advocate) jktLo dh vksj ls@

PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM.

These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders

of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-5, Jaipur, dated 10.11.2016 pertaining to

assessment year 2012-13. Common grounds are involved in all these appeals.

Therefore, all these appeals are taken up for hearing together and are being

disposed of by way of a consolidated order. The ground raised in all these appeals

are common except change in figure, which reads as under :-

ITA No. 88/JP/2017 :

1.

“On the facts and in the circumstances o the case, the ld. CIT (A) has legally and factually erred in confirming late filing fee of Rs. 17,000/- charged by ld. A.O. under section 234E o the IT Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that during the relevant period there was no such

2 ITA No. 88, 89 & 90/JP/2017 M/. Genus Consortium, Jaipur.

provision in section 200A o the IT Act, 1961 for charging such late filing fee while processing the Quarterly statement filed in form No. 26Q an also without appreciating the acts discussed in written submission supported by case laws of various ITAT, Benches. Thus, confirming of the action of Ld. AO of charging of such fee while sending intimation u/s 200A is legally and factually incorrect and deserves to be deleted summarily. 2. The appellant craves to add, amend or withdraw any of the ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”

2.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the

written brief.

2.1. On the contrary, the ld. Departmental Representatives supported the orders

of the authorities below and submitted that the issue is decided against the assessee

by Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide judgment rendered in the case of Rashmikant

Kundalia Vs. Union of India.

2.2. In rejoinder, the ld. Counsel submitted that this judgment was considered by

the coordinate bench and decided the issue in favour of the assessee in ITA No.

738/JP/2016.

2.3. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record

and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Hon’ble Bombay High

Court has decided the issue in para 15 of the judgment as under:

“As stated earlier, due to late submission of TDS statements means the Department is burdened with extra work which is otherwise not required if the TDS statements were furnished within the prescribed time. This fee is for the payment of the additional burden forced upon the Department. A person deducting the tax (the deductor), is allowed to file his TDS statement beyond the prescribed time provided he pays the fee as prescribed under section 234E of the Act. In other words, the late filing of the TDS return/statements is regularized upon payment of the fee as set out in section 234E. This is

3 ITA No. 88, 89 & 90/JP/2017 M/. Genus Consortium, Jaipur.

nothing but a privilege and a special service to the deductor allowing him to file the TDS return/statements beyond the time prescribed by the Act and/or the Rules. We therefore cannot agree with the argument of the petitioners that the fee that is sought to be collected under section 234E of the Act is really nothing but a collection in the guise of a tax.”

In view of the above, we do not find any merit into the contention of the ld. Counsel

for the assessee. The ground raised in the appeal is dismissed.

ITA Nos. 89 & 90/JP/2017 :

3.

Now we take up the appeals in ITA Nos. 89 & 90/JP/2017. Since the issue

involved in these appeals is exactly similar to ground raised in ITA No. 88/JP/2017

and the issue has been decided by rejecting the appeal of the assessee, we find no

merit in these appeals too, therefore, taking a consistent view, both these appeals

are also dismissed.

4.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 09 .03.2017.

Sd/- Sd/- ( HkkxpUn ½ ( dqy Hkkjr) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 09/03/2017. Pooja/

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू

1.

The Appellant- M/s Genus Consortium, Jaipur. 2. The Respondent –The DCIT,Ghaziabad.

4 ITA No. 88, 89 & 90/JP/2017 M/. Genus Consortium, Jaipur.

3.

The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 88,89 & 90/JP/2017)

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 234E

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →