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

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner

of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 (Incharge) Madurai, in ITA No. 0156/2016-17

dated 14.12.2017 for assessment year 2013-14.

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

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.

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 ITA Nos. 1019, 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).

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.

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

Sd/- Sd/- (एन.आर.एस .गणेशन) (एसजयरामन) (N.R.S. GANESAN) (S. JAYARAMAN) �या�यकसद�य/Judicial Member लेखासद�य/Accountant Member

चे�नई/Chennai, *दनांक/Dated: 30th July , 2018 JPV आदेशक%+�त,ल-पअ.े-षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ0/Appellant 2. +1यथ0/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु2त ) अपील(/CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयु2त/CIT 5. -वभागीय+�त�न�ध/DR 6. गाड5फाईल/GF