G RADHAKRISHNAN,SIVAKASI vs. DCIT TDS CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 526/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 July 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 intimation raising the demand under Section 234E was invalid as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A prior to June 1, 2015. The AO could have passed a separate order under Section 234E, but this was not done within the limitation period.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an E-TDS statement late, leading to a demand of Rs. 9,000/- under Section 234E. The Assessing Officer (AO) confirmed this demand, holding that the levy was mandatory. The assessee argued that Section 200A(1)(C), which enabled the levy, was inserted later and that the AO's order was time-barred.

What were the issues?

Whether the levy of fee under Section 234E was permissible under Section 200A prior to the insertion of clause (1)(C), and whether the AO's order was barred by limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 200A,Section 234E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 26.07.2018Pronounced: 30.07.2018

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 (Incharge) Madurai, in dated 14.12.2017 for assessment year 2013-14.

ITA No.526/Mds/2018 :- 2 -:

2.

Shri G. Radhakrishnan, Proprietor of M/s. R.K. Industries, Sivakasi, the deductor of tax, the assessee, had paid the tax deducted at source within the due date on 05.04.2013 for the fourth quarter. However, he filed Form No. 26Q on 29.06.2016 as against the due date of 15.05.2013. Thus, there was a delay of 45 days in filing the E-TDS statement. The E-TDS statement was processed and an intimation was sent to the assessee u/s. 200A rising a demand of Rs. 9,000/- u/s. 234E, fee for late filing of E-TDS statement.

Against the intimation, the deductor filed petition u/s. 264 dated 14.11.2014 before the Ld. CIT-(TDS), Coimbatore. The Ld. CIT-(TDS) relying on the judgement of the ITAT, A Bench, Chennai, remitted back the issue to the AO for passing order, after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Thereafter, the AO passed an order dated 27.12.2016 holding that levy of fee u/s. 234E is mandatory and raised the demand of Rs. 9,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed this appeal.

3.

None was present for the assessee, however, it has filed a written submission, wherein, it has submitted that the E-TDS statement should be processed u/s. 200A(1)(C) which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f.

01.06.2015 only. According to the provisions of section 200A(1), no intimation can be sent u/s. 200A, after the expiry of one year from the end of the ITA No.526/Mds/2018 :- 3 -: financial year in which the statement is filed. In this case, the assessee filed the E-TDS on 29.06.2013, which was processed on 16.01.2014. The revised order, if any, can be passed on or before 31.03.2015 i.e., after one year from 31.03.2014. It has further pleaded that the ITAT, A Bench, Chennai in its orders in 1020 & 1021/Mds/2015 dated 10.07.2015 in the case of Smt. G. Indhirani vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad has set aside the intimation u/s. 200A for the reason that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in section 200A of the Act for levy of fees u/s. 234E while processing the statement of tax deducted at source.

The ITAT has also held that it is open to the Assessing Officer to pass a separate order u/s. 234E of the Act levying fee, provided the limitation for such a levy did not expire. Thus, the assessee submitted that the order passed by the officer dated 27.12.2016 is barred by limitation. Per contra, the DR supported the orders of the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

We find merit in the submissions made by the assessee. As held by this ITAT, the intimation sent to the assessee u/s. 200A dated 16.01.2014 raising the demand of Rs. 9,000/- u/s. 234E towards levy of late filing fee is invalid as there was no enabling provision in section 200A, viz., clause (1)(C) of section 234E, prior to 01.06.2015 for levy of fees u/s. 234E while processing the statement of tax deducted at source. It was open for the AO to pass separate order u/s. 234E levying the fee, provided the limitation for such a levy did not ITA No.526/Mds/2018 :- 4 -:

expire. However, in this case, the AO has not passed any order u/s. 234E independently within 31.03.2015 and hence, the impugned order is set aside.

5.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced on Monday, the 30th day of July, 2018 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 200A

All 4,379 judgments and leading authorities on Section 200A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →