Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, ATN Infratech P. Ltd., challenged orders from CPC(TDS) for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2015-16, which levied late fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act. The core dispute was the validity of imposing these late fees for periods before 01.06.2015, the effective date of Section 200A(1)(c) which enabled such levy.
Held
The Tribunal, following its previous order and relying on High Court judgments, ruled that no late fee under Section 234E could be imposed through processing under Section 200A for assessment years prior to 01.06.2015. Section 200A(1)(c), which provides for the levy, was introduced with effect from this date, making retrospective application invalid.
Key Issues
Whether late fees under Section 234E can be levied under Section 200A for assessment years prior to 01.06.2015, given the effective date of Section 200A(1)(c).
Sections Cited
Section 234E, Section 200A, Section 200A(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
These appeals have been preferred by the assessee, challenging the respective orders of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), wherein the Appeal No. Assessment Year Quarter Form No. Disputed Amount 3rd 1596/Del/2023 2013-14 26Q 24,000 4th 1597/Del/2023 2015-16 24Q 39,800 4th 1598/Del/2023 2015-16 26Q 69,770 Total 1,33,570
Heard and perused the record.
On hearing learned representatives, it comes up that the sole issue, involved for adjudication in these appeals, relating to levy of late fee u/s 234E r.w.s. 200A of the Income Tax Act, 196, is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 15.02.2024, rendered in assessee’s own case in for A.Y. 2015-16 (4th quarter/Form no. 24Q). Therein, the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal by deleting the late fee levied u/s 234E, inter alia, observing as under:
“6. Ld. AR has submitted that under section 200A of the Act, which deals with the manner in which the statement of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) shall be processed, the Authorities have no power to impose the late fee under section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013 to 2015- 16, since section 200A(1) (c) of the Act was introduced only with effect from 1-6-2015. Accordingly, any fee under Sec 234E could have been levied only prospectively, for periods beyond 01.06.2015, which is not the case of the case. Accordingly, the levy of fee on the assessee is invalid and thus, deserves to be deleted. It is submitted that no fee under Sec 234E of the Act can be levied before 01.6.2015. In this respect, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case True Blue Voice
"15. The learned counsel for the respondent advanced his arguments on the aspect of the imposition of late fee by applying section 200A(l) (c) of the Act retrospectively. This Court is not in agreement with the said submissions of the respondent. Since, there was no provision for imposing the late fee under section 234E of the Act while filing and processing the TDS returns under section 200A of the Act, clause (c) to sub-section (1) to section 200A was introduced with effect from 1- 7-2012. Therefore, the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is rejected by this Court.
In view of the above, it is made clear that the respondent had had imposed the late fee only under section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2015- 2015. However, section 200A(L)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under section 200A of the Act, when they have processed the application for TDS under section 200A, no late fee can be imposed under section 234E. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court feels that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside."
6.1 Further reliance is placed on Amaravati vs ITO, High Court of Kerala, [2022] 142 taxmann.com 81 (Kerala); Atlas Brands (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT, High Court of Karnataka, [2022] 137 taxmann.com 191 (Karnataka); Franchise India Brands Ltd. Vs CPC, ITAT Delhi, [2020] 122 taxmann.com 196 (Delhi - Trib.) Govt. Girls Sr. Secondary School Vs ACIT, ITAT Delhi, [2020] 121 taxmann.com 170 (Delhi - Trib.)
In the light of aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the Ld.CIT(A) has fallen in error in sustaining the levy of penalty in ITA No.878/Del/2023. ….. ”
Ld. DR has defended the order of ld. Tax authorities on the same premises as emphasized, in hearing of the appeals for earlier quarters, but there being no change in facts and circumstances in the respective assessment period in question, of us was also in quorum, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the late fee levied u/s 234E r.w.s. 200A of the Act for the respective quarters in question is deleted. Consequently, appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on 13.03.2024.