KAMALA ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO TDS 1(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4087/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 January 20184 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s order, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Rashmikant Kundalia. This decision stated that late filing of TDS statements is regularized upon payment of the fee prescribed under Section 234E.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) levied a late filing fee of Rs. 12,600 under Section 234E. The assessee appealed, arguing the AO lacked the power to levy this fee in an intimation under Section 200A, especially before the amendment effective June 1, 2015. The CIT(A) upheld the levy.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO had the power to levy a fee under Section 234E in an intimation processed under Section 200A for the assessment year 2014-15, prior to the amendment of Section 200A(1)(c).

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, MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Hearing: 29/01/2018Pronounced: 30/01/2018

ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2014-15. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-59, Mumbai and arises out of the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’). Though the case was fixed for hearing on 09.03.2017, 01.09.2017, 29.09.2017 and 29.01.2018, neither the assessee nor its authorized representative appeared before the Tribunal on the above dates.

2.

The ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that (i) the power to charge fees u/s 234E in the intimation processed u/s 200A is given to the AO by the amendment of clause (c) of section 200A(1) w.e.f. 1st June 2015, (ii) as per subsection 3 of section 234E, the fee is required to be paid before delivering the statement of TDS; once that opportunity is missed, the AO did not have power to impose fees u/s 234E in the intimation u/s 200A, until 31st May 2015.

Thus it is stated that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of fees of Rs.12,600/- u/s 234E in the intimation passed u/s 200A by the AO.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the AO has computed the late filing fees of Rs.12,600/- u/s 234E as under:

Sl Type of Default Default Amount reported as Payable No. Amount ‘Interest/Others’ (Rs.) (Rs.) claimed in the statement (Rs.) 1. Short Payment 0.00 0.00 0.00 2, Short Deduction/Collection 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Interest on payments default u/s 201(1A)/206C(7) 3(a) Interest on short payment 0.00 0.00 0.00 3(b) Interest on late payment 15,664.50 0.00 15,664.50 4. Interest on deduction/collection default u/s 201(1A)/206C(7) 4(a) Interest on short 0.00 0.00 0.00 deduction/collection 4(b) Interest on the late 0.00 0.00 0.00 deduction/collection 5. Late filing fee u/s 234E 12,600.00 0.00 12,600.00 Payable (Rs.) 28,264.50 Kamala Enterprises 3 Rounding – Off (to the nearest multiple of ten rupees) (Rs.) -4.50 Net Payable (Rs.) 28,260.00

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India dated 09.02.2015 upheld the levy of late filing fees of Rs.12,600/- computed by the AO u/s 234E of the Act.

5.

As mentioned hereinbefore, neither the assessee nor its authorized representative appeared before the Tribunal on the dates fixed for hearing. 6. The Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia (supra) and supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant materials on record. The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the above decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has rightly concluded that “the argument of the appellant that AO is not empowered to collect fee u/s 234E cannot come to its rescue. The jurisdictional High Court in decision cited supra has stated that 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 u/s 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. Therefore, the appellant who has filed statement has to pay the fees levied u/s 234E.”

More judgments on Section 200A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →