RAVI RAJKUMAR VALECHA (PROPRIETOR),ULHASNAGAR vs. DCIT CPC (TDS), KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4822/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 June 2018AY 2013-144 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, which allows for the levy of fees under Section 234E, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the late filing fee could not be levied for the assessment year in question.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a TDS return belatedly for the fourth quarter of AY 2013-14, with a delay of 136 days. The assessee cited software changes and lack of technical expertise as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E is permissible for AY 2013-14, considering the prospective nature of the amendment to Section 200A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Nisha N. Gwalani, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, DR

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. 981/13-14 dated 21.03.2016. The Assessment was framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad, U.P in short ‘DCIT’/ AO) for the A.Y. 2013-14 vide order dated 28.12.2013 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the levy of for late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. For this assessee has raised the following ground: -

“1. that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dismissed the request of the assessee in the appeal to waive the late fee levied under section 234E of the Act, without considering the submissions on merits.”

The other grounds are argumentative; we will deal with as argument.

3.

Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is in trading and filed TDS return belatedly for the fourth quarter in form No.26 for AY 2013-14, by delay of 136 days. The assessee before CIT(A) explained that the delay had caused due to frequent changes made in the software requisites for preparation and uploading of the TDS returns and the assessee is not so literate and is a small time trader, having no expertise in computer operations nor can afford to have a qualified professional to oversee the TDS process. Inadvertently, the delay was caused not due to deliberate fault by the assessee, but due to lack of knowledge of high profile computer operations. The law when enacted does not distinguish between the small time business and the big corporate conglomerates, who can afford to employ the qualified professionals to oversee the compliances. Therefore, the Assessee took little more time to find the means to overcome and adopt such technology trust upon the assessee coming to him at an extract cost. Aggrieved, assessee against the confirmation of order by CIT(A) preferred the appeal before Tribunal.

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the alleged default pertain to financial year 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14. In similar circumstances, Hon’ble Karnataka High court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi (2016) 73 taxmann.com 252, has considered the issue as the view taken by the Hon’ble High Court is that the amendment in section 200A of the Act with effect from 01.06.2015 is prospective and not retrospective. There is a contradictory view by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kaurani Vs. Union of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Gujarat), wherein it is held to be retrospective. In view of the above position, we are of the view that one view is in favour of assessee and another view is against the assessee. Hence, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC), we adopt the decision in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the view that the provision of section 200A of the Act has amended with effect from 01.06.2015 is prospective and not retrospective. Hence, the late filing fee under section 234E cannot be levied in the present AY. Hence, we delete the levy of fee and allow the appeal of the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15-06-2018 AadoSa kI GaaoYaNaa Kulao mao idnaMk 15-06-2018kao kI ga[- .

More judgments on Section 234E

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →