SRI.ARJUNA REDDIAR PEDHA REDDIAR,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, ALAPPUZHA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 381/COCH/2020Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 March 2022AY 2017-183 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 held that the fee under Section 234E is a mandatory levy for delayed filing of TDS returns and that there is no provision for condoning such delay based on reasonable cause like old age or health ailments.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an elderly individual with health issues, filed TDS returns late for multiple assessment years. The Assessing Officer levied a fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act for this delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the fee under Section 234E for delayed TDS return filing can be waived or reduced on grounds of old age and health issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri George Mathan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM

For Respondent: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Hearing: 16.03.2022Pronounced: 16.03.2022

PER BENCH:

1.

These five appeals filed by the assessee are against the orders of the Ld.CIT(A)-Kottyam, dt.18-09-2020 for the FYs.2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18, against confirmation of levy of fee u/s.234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

2.

It was submitted by the Ld.AR that admittedly there was a delay in filing the quarterly return of TDS u/s.200(3) of the Act. It was the submission that the delay was on account of the fact that the assessee was more than 83 years old and he was also having health problems related to old age. It was the prayer that considering the age of the assessee and his health ailments, the fee

:- 2 -: 381, 382, 383 & 384/Coch/2020 as levied may kindly be cancelled or in the alternate reduced. It was the further submission that this was the first time the issue was happened in the case of assessee and he was not a regular defaulter.

3.

In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). She has also placed before us the decision of Hon’ble co- ordinate Bench of ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Child Development Project Office-Shrinagar, in dt.19-08-2020, wherein similar levy u/s.234E of the Act in respect of the default committed after 01-06-2015 has been confirmed by the Tribunal. It was the submission that old age or health ailments nor the claim of reasonable cause can be considered in respect of the fee u/s.234E of the Act.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the levy u/s.234E of the Act in the present cases is in respect of defaults committed under the provisions of Section 200(3) of the Act for the period after 01-06-2015. The fee u/s.234E of the Act is mandatory fee for the delay. Admittedly, there was no provision for reasonable cause as provided under the Act. We find no error in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the fee levied u/s.234E.

5.

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed.

Dictated and pronounced in the open court on 16th March, 2022

More judgments on Section 234E

All 4,792 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234E →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →