Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH:
filed by the assessee M/s.Tranz India Corporation, against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore, in 17, ITA No.22/16-17, ITA No.19/16-17, ITA No.20/16-17 & ITA No.21/16- 17, respectively, dated 31.07.2017 for the AY 2014-15. appeals filed by the assessee Smt.Ramachandran Vichithra, against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore, in ITA No.07/16-17, ITA No.08/16-17, ITA No.09/16-17, ITA No.10/16-17, ITA No.11/16-17 & ITA No.12/16-17, respectively, dated 31.07.2017 for the AY 2013-14.
Associates, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore, in dated 30.08.2017 for the AY 2013-14. assessee M/s.K.R.Healthcare (P) Ltd., against the order of the ITA Nos.2421-2425/Mds/2017 ITA No.2463/Mds/2017 ITA Nos.2464 & 2465/Mds/2017 ITA Nos.2466 & 2467/Mds/2017 ITA Nos.2468 & 2469/Mds/2017 :- 4 -:
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore, in 17 & ITA No.75/16-17 dated 31.07.2017 for the AY 2013-14. assessee M/s.K.R. Pharmacy, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore, in ITA No.73/16-17 & ITA No.74/16-17 dated 31.07.2017 for the AY 2013-14. assessee Shri R.V.Ramachandran, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore, in ITA No.05/16-17 & ITA No.06/16-17 dated 31.07.2017 for the AY 2013-14.
As all the appeals are on identical issues and they are disposed off by this common order.
Shri S.N.Natarajan, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri S.Sridhar, Adv., represented on behalf of the assessee.
It was submitted by the Ld.AR that all the appeals were against the levy of late filing fee in respect of the quarterly TDS settlements. It was a submission that the late filing fee has been levied u/s.234E of the IT Act.
ITA Nos.2421-2425/Mds/2017 ITA No.2463/Mds/2017 ITA Nos.2464 & 2465/Mds/2017 ITA Nos.2466 & 2467/Mds/2017 ITA Nos.2468 & 2469/Mds/2017 :- 5 -:
It was a submission that the quarterly TDS statements had been filed, admittedly, beyond the time limit prescribed under the act and the same to be processed by the CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad, u/s.200A, wherein the late filing fee u/s.234E was levied and demanded from the assessee. It was a submission that aggrieved with the levy, the assessees had filed the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) who had deleted the same by following the decision of the ITAT Chennai Benches in the case of Smt.G.Indrani and others in to 1021/Mds/2015 dated 10.07.2015 wherein it had been held that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in Sec.200A for making such adjustment of levying fees u/s.234E and accordingly set aside the intimations u/s.200A issued in those cases. It was a submission that however, while doing so, ITAT held that it was open to the AO to pass separate orders u/s.234E of the Act for levying this fee in accordance with law. In consonance with these observations of the ITAT, the Ld.CIT(A) had also made a remark while deleting the demand of fee u/s.234E raised through the intimation u/s.200A that the AO is at liberty to pass separate order for levying fee u/s.234E as per provisions of law. It was a submission that consequently, the AO had levied the fee u/s.234E by passing the relevant orders dated 28.03.2016. However, the AO has not specified the provision under which he has been enabled to pass the order levying fee u/s.234E of the Act. It was a submission that the levy of fee u/s.234E may be made only in the enabling order passed
ITA Nos.2421-2425/Mds/2017 ITA No.2463/Mds/2017 ITA Nos.2464 & 2465/Mds/2017 ITA Nos.2466 & 2467/Mds/2017 ITA Nos.2468 & 2469/Mds/2017 :- 6 -: u/s.200A and as it had been rightly held that there was no enabling provision in Sec.200A prior to 01.06.2015 for such adjustment of the levy of fee u/s.234E, the levy of fee as made by the AO was liable to be deleted.
In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and the Ld.CIT(A). It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the Ld.CIT(A) when adjudicating the issue had followed the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani v. Union Bank of India reported in [2017] 83 taxmann.com 137 to hold that as the question as to whether the levy of fee u/s.234E can be levied otherwise through an intimation u/s.200A was not dealt with by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union Bank of India reported in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252.
We have considered the rival submissions. Once the assessees file their quarterly TDS statements in Form No.26Q then the same is to be processed u/s.200A. This is because of the words of Sec.200A(i) is “where a statement tax deduction at source or correction statement had been made by deducting any sum u/s.200, such statement shall be processed in the following manner”. The late fee has been provided in Sec.234E. Sec.234E provides for the computation of the late fee. A late
ITA Nos.2421-2425/Mds/2017 ITA No.2463/Mds/2017 ITA Nos.2464 & 2465/Mds/2017 ITA Nos.2466 & 2467/Mds/2017 ITA Nos.2468 & 2469/Mds/2017 :- 7 -: fee computed u/s.234E can be levied only on the processing of the statements of the tax deducted at source u/s.200A in so far as Sec.200A(1)(c) provides for such late fee to be included in the processing.
Thus, it becomes clear that no order u/s.234E can be passed independently. The late fee can be levied only after processing the TDS statements furnished. This being so, we are of the view that the levy of interest u/s.234E in the order dated 28.03.2016 as made by the AO and as confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is unsustainable and consequently stands deleted.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in to 2425/Mds/2017, ITA Nos.2470-2475/Mds/2017, ITA No.2463/Mds/2017, ITA Nos.2464 & 2465/Mds/2017, ITA Nos.2466 & 2467/Mds/2017 and ITA Nos.2468 & 2469/Mds/2017 stand allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on December 21, 2017, at Chennai.