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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 66/NAG/2020Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 October 20227 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E was unsustainable for defaults occurring prior to the enactment of the enabling provision, Section 20A(1)(c). However, for defaults occurring after the effective date of Section 20A(1)(c), the levy was considered mandatory and not subject to deletion on grounds of reasonable cause.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed against orders confirming the levy of fees under Section 234E for delayed furnishing of statements. The Assessing Officer (AO) levied these fees due to the default in filing statements within the prescribed time limits.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of levying fees under Section 234E in the absence of an enabling provision. A secondary issue concerned whether the levy could be deleted on grounds of reasonable cause for delayed filing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 20A(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.

Before: SHRI

Archana Vidyaniketan . 60 to 68 / NAG /20 2 0 & Ors / Apearances द्वारा A sese by : Shri H.H. Chimthanawala (F or Sr. No. 1 - 9 ) Shri Mahavir Atal (F or Sr.No.10 - 15 ) Shri K.P. Dewani (F or Sr.No.16 - 18 ) None f or Sr.No.19 - 21 Shri Jaipal C. Nunani (F or Sr. No. 2 - 23 ) Revenue by : Shri G. J. Ninawe æ� ±ª�| û� ≠�∏�ü / Date of conclusive Hearing : 14 / 1 0/202 °�Ω¨� û� ≠�∏�ü / Date of Pronouncement : 14 / 1 0/202 / ORDER आदेश PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI , AM; The p resent apeals of diferent asese are asailed against respective orders of Comisioner of Income Tax (Apeals) [for short �CIT (A) �] pased u/s 250 of the Income - tax Act, 1961 [for short � the Act� ], which ascended out of respective order s of intimation procesed by the , CPC - TDS, Ghaziabad [for short �AO� ] for the asesment year s [for short �AY� ] 201 3 - 1 4 to 201 6 - 1 7 .

2. T his seks to adjudicate t he isue of authorisation of levy of fes u/s 234E for default in furnishing statement u/s 20(3) in the absence of enabling provision.

3.

Since the facts and isue involved in these bunch of twenty thre apeals are identical, with the agrement of both the parties; are clubed and heard together for a consolidated order . ITAT - Pune Page 2 of 7 Archana Vidyaniketan . 60 to 68 / NAG /20 2 0 & Ors 4. Before we proced for adjudication, it is esential to reproduce the grounds chalenged by apelant, as; —1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case learned CIT(A) ered in confirming fes levied U/S 234E by asesing oficer.

2.

Apelant craves leave to ad or alter any other ground that may be taken at the time of hearing . “ 5. Sucinctly stated the facts of the case are; the apelant asese failed to deliver the statements within the time limit specified in sub - section (3) of section 20 , consequently against such default, t he AO levied late filing fes u/s 234E . Agrieved by the said levy , the asese caried the mater unsucesfuly before the first apelate authority [for short �FAA� ], for the reason the apelant is before th is Tribunal chalenging the levy of f es in the absence of authority and enabling pr ovisions.

6.

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

Archana Vidyaniketan . 60 to 68 / NAG /20 2 0 & Ors duly considered the facts of the case in the light of setled legal position forewarned to either parties.

7.

It shal serve to state that, a person liable to deduct any sum under the provisions of chapter XVI of the Act , is under obligation to deliver or furnish a statement u/s 20(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 fes u/s 234E for delay in furnishing statement has ben brought into statute w.e.f. st July, 2012 , the enabling provision of section 20A(1)(c) st Ju authorising such levy came into w.e.f. 1 ne , 2015 Finance Act, 2015, consequently the fes levied for any default prior the reto being auctoritate hence unsustainable in the eyes of law . F or the sake brevity the aplicability of provision s can be adumbrated Provision Enabling for Date of Asesment Procesing of Year Charing of Fes Statement furnished Efective Levy Statement u/s u/s 234E u/s 20(3) runs from (Delay) 20A(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 . 60 to 68 / NAG /20 2 0 & Ors 8. Undisputedly, i n the present case , the Ld. AO procesed the statement and levied the fes u/s 234E for delayed furnishing in the absence of enabling provision of section 20A(1)(c) of the Act , such levy sufers from infirmity in the light of decision of Hon�ble High C Karnataka in �Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors Vs UOI � reported in 289 CTR 602 , ergo we order acordingly. to 6 7 /NAG/2020 . The facts and isue in this bunch of seven apeals are identical; the a djudication l aid in No. 60/PUN/2020 shal mutatis mutandis aply to to 6 7 /NAG/2020 . the extant apeal, the statement for the AY 2016 - 17 was admited furnished beyond the due date prescribed, resultantly the Ld. AO exercising the provisions of section 20A(1)(c) levied fes st June, 2015 for default ocured post 1 , which in an apeal confirmed by the Ld. FA being - . During the virtual hearing , t he Ld. AR , adverting to provision of section 273B con tended that , the delay in filing was ITAT - Pune Page 5 of 7

Archana Vidyaniketan . 60 to 68 / NAG /20 2 0 & Ors atributable to technical glitches encountered by the apelant and same being a reasonable cause prayed for deletion. Au Contraire Ld. DR in rebut al vehemently submiting that, the provision of section 234E is outside the umbrela of section 273B of the Act and we finding force in the argument of the Revenue, are of the considered view that, l evy of late fe pr escribed u /s 234E is mandatory and consequential in nature, therefore, the same canot be deleted on the ground of reasonable cause as explained by the apelant, thus the ground stands adjudicated against the apelant. t o 47/NAG/2020 ; t he facts and isue in this bunch of s ix apeals are identical; the adjudication laid in shal mutatis mutandis aply to ITA No. 42 /NAG/2020 to 4 7/NAG/2020. t o 10 /NAG/2020 ; t he facts and isue in this bunch of thre apeals are identical; the adjudication laid in ITA No. 60/PUN/2020 shal mutatis mutandis aply to ITA No. 98 /NAG/2020 to 10 /NAG/2020. ITAT - Pune Page 6 of 7

Archana Vidyaniketan . 60 to 68 / NAG /20 2 0 & Ors 13. ITA No. 416 /NAG/20 19 t o 418 /NAG/20 19; t he facts and isue in this bunch of thre apeals are identical; the adjudication laid in ITA No. 60/PUN/2020 shal mutatis mutandis aply to ITA No. 416 /NAG/20 19 to 418 /NAG/20 19 . t o 36 /NAG/20 20; t he facts and isue in this bunch of two apeals are identical; the adjudication laid in shal mutatis mutandis aply to ITA No. 35 /NAG/20 20 to 36 /NAG/20 20 .

15.

Resultantly, the apeal of the apelant in stands dismised, and remaining apeal s of the apelant s are alowed in above terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the o rder pronounced in the open th day of court on this Friday 14 ber , 202.

More judgments on Section 234E

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →