ARCHANA VIDYANIKETAN LAKHPURI,AKOLA vs. ACIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 62/NAG/2020Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 October 2022AY 2014-157 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that fees levied under Section 234E for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, are unsustainable due to the absence of an enabling provision (Section 200A(1)(c)). However, for defaults occurring after June 1, 2015, the levy is confirmed as mandatory.

What were the facts?

The appeals concern the levy of fees under Section 234E for delayed furnishing of TDS statements. The assessees failed to file these statements within the prescribed time limits for various assessment years.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of levying fees under Section 234E in the absence of a specific enabling provision in Section 200A(1)(c) for periods before its effective date. A secondary issue involved the applicability of reasonable cause for delay under Section 273B for defaults after the effective date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200(3),Section 200A(1)(c),Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI S. S. GODARA & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Shri H.H. Chimthanawala (For Sr.No. 1-9), Shri Mahavir Atal (For Sr.No.10-15), Shri K.P. Dewani (For Sr.No.16-18), Shri Jaipal C. Nunani (For Sr. No. 22-23)
Pronounced: 14/10/2022

Archana Vidyaniketan to 68/NAG/2020 & Ors द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Shri H.H. Chimthanawala (For Sr.No. 1-9) Shri Mahavir Atal (For Sr.No.10-15) Shri K.P. Dewani (For Sr.No.16-18) None for Sr.No.19-21 Shri Jaipal C. Nunani (For Sr. No. 22-23) Revenue by : Shri G. J. Ninawe सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 14/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022 आदेश / ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The present appeals of different assessee are assailed against respective orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short “CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”], which ascended out of respective orders of intimation processed by the ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad [for short “AO”] for the assessment years [for short “AY”] 2013-14 to 2016-17.

2.

This seeks to adjudicate the issue of authorisation of levy of fees u/s 234E for default in furnishing statement u/s 200(3) in the absence of enabling provision.

3.

Since the facts and issue involved in these bunch of twenty three appeals are identical, with the agreement of both the parties; are clubbed and heard together for a consolidated order. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 7 Archana Vidyaniketan to 68/NAG/2020 & Ors 4. Before we proceed for adjudication, it is essential to reproduce the grounds challenged by appellant, as; “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case learned CIT(A) erred in confirming fees levied U/S 234E by assessing officer.

2. Appellant craves leave to add or alter any other ground that may be taken at the time of hearing.”

5.

Succinctly stated the facts of the case are; the appellant assessee failed to deliver the statements within the time limit specified in sub-section (3) of section 200, consequently against such default, the Ld. AO levied late filing fees u/s 234E. Aggrieved by the said levy, the assessee carried the matter unsuccessfully before the first appellate authority [for short “FAA”], for the reason the appellant is before this Tribunal challenging the levy of fees in the absence of authority and enabling provisions.

6.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short “ITAT, Rules”] perused the material placed on record, case laws relied upon by the appellant as well the respondent and ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 7

Archana Vidyaniketan to 68/NAG/2020 & Ors duly considered the facts of the case in the light of settled legal position forewarned to either parties.

7.

It shall serve to state that, a person liable to deduct any sum under the provisions of chapter XVII of the Act, is under obligation to deliver or furnish a statement u/s 200(3) of the Act within the due date prescribed therein and in the event of default, is exposed to section 234E of the Act. Although the levy of fees u/s 234E for delay in furnishing statement has been brought into statute w.e.f. 1st July, 2012, the enabling provision of section 200A(1)(c) authorising such levy came into force w.e.f. 1st June, 2015 by Finance Act, 2015, consequently the fees levied for any default prior thereto being sine auctoritate hence unsustainable in the eyes of law. For the sake brevity the applicability of provisions can be adumbrated as; Provision Enabling for Date of Assessment Processing of Year Charring of Fees Statement furnished Effective Levy Statement u/s u/s 234E u/s 200(3) runs from (Delay) 200A(1)(c) By 31st May, 2015 - Any AY, upto Not Present Not Provided 2012-13 After 1st June, 2015 1st June, 2015 By 31st May, 2015 - 2013-14 to Enacted Not Provided 2015-16 After 1st June, 2015 1st June, 2015 By 31st May, 2015 - From 2016-17 Present Provided After 1st June, 2015 1st June, 2015 ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 7

Archana Vidyaniketan to 68/NAG/2020 & Ors 8. Undisputedly, in the present case, the Ld. AO processed the statement and levied the fees u/s 234E for delayed furnishing in the absence of enabling provision of section 200A(1)(c) of the Act, such levy suffers from infirmity in the light of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in “Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors Vs UOI” reported in 289 CTR 602, ergo we order accordingly. to 67/NAG/2020. The facts and issue in this bunch of seven appeals are identical; the adjudication laid in shall mutatis mutandis apply to ITA No. 61/NAG/2020 to 67/NAG/2020. the extant appeal, the statement for the AY 2016-17 was admitted furnished beyond the due date prescribed, resultantly the Ld. AO exercising the provisions of section 200A(1)(c) levied fees for default occurred post 1st June, 2015, which in an appeal confirmed by the Ld. FAA being intra-legem. During the virtual hearing, the Ld. AR, adverting to provision of section 273B contended that, the delay in filing was ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 7

Archana Vidyaniketan to 68/NAG/2020 & Ors attributable to technical glitches encountered by the appellant and same being a reasonable cause prayed for deletion. Au Contraire Ld. DR in rebuttal vehemently submitting that, the provision of section 234E is outside the umbrella of section 273B of the Act and we finding force in the argument of the Revenue, are of the considered view that, levy of late fee prescribed u/s 234E is mandatory and consequential in nature, therefore, the same cannot be deleted on the ground of reasonable cause as explained by the appellant, thus the ground stands adjudicated against the appellant. to 47/NAG/2020; the facts and issue in this bunch of six appeals are identical; the adjudication laid in shall mutatis mutandis apply to ITA No. 42/NAG/2020 to 47/NAG/2020. to 100/NAG/2020; the facts and issue in this bunch of three appeals are identical; the adjudication laid in ITA No. 60/PUN/2020 shall mutatis mutandis apply to ITA No. 98/NAG/2020 to 100/NAG/2020. ITAT-Pune Page 6 of 7

Archana Vidyaniketan to 68/NAG/2020 & Ors 13. ITA No. 416/NAG/2019 to 418/NAG/2019; the facts and issue in this bunch of three appeals are identical; the adjudication laid in ITA No. 60/PUN/2020 shall mutatis mutandis apply to ITA No. 416/NAG/2019 to 418/NAG/2019. to 36/NAG/2020; the facts and issue in this bunch of two appeals are identical; the adjudication laid in shall mutatis mutandis apply to ITA No. 35/NAG/2020 to 36/NAG/2020.

15.

Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant in stands dismissed, and all remaining appeals of the appellants are allowed in above terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Friday 14th day of October, 2022.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 234E

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →