NATURAL RECREATION PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 82/NAG/2021Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 October 2022AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was inserted with effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for defaults prior to this date, the levy was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the charging of interest under Section 234E for delayed furnishing of TDS statements. The appeals were filed with a significant delay, which was condoned by the tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the levy of fee under Section 234E is applicable for defaults in furnishing TDS statements that occurred prior to the insertion of Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

1.

All these appeals filed by the assessee against the common order dated 24-07-2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nagpur [‘CIT(A)’] upholding the charging of interest u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of above mentioned Quarters of the assessment years.

2.

We find that all the appeals were filed with a delay of 703 days. Upon hearing ld. DR, we find that the above said delay is saved by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed during National Lockdown imposed on account of pandemic Covid-19. Therefore, the above said delay is condoned.

3.

Since, the issues raised in all the appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear all the appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

4.

First, we shall take up appeal of assessee in for A.Y. 2013-14 (Q2).

5.

The assessee raised five grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in upholding the order passed u/s. 200A confirming the levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act for default in furnishing TDS statement for Quarter 2 of A.Y. 2013-14 in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Heard ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We note that fee for default in furnishing the TDS statements have been imposed on the assessee u/s. 234E of the Act for the 2nd quarter of the financial year 2012-13 (A.Y. 2013-14). Section 200A deals with processing of TDS statements of tax deducted at source and Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A was inserted by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01-06-2015 providing for the levy of fee u/s.234E of the Act. In such circumstances, levy of such fee u/s.234E can be levied only after 01-06-2015 for the default committed by the assessee. We find that the period covered in the present subject appeal before us is Quarter 2 of financial year 2012-13 (A.Y. 2013-14). Therefore, we hold that the amendment by insertion of Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of section 200A of the Act is not applicable, therefore, the order of CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the order passed u/s. 200A confirming the levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act for default in furnishing TDS statement for Quarter 2 of A.Y. 2013-14 and it is set aside.

7.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.

8.

We find that the issue raised in the appeals and the facts in to 83/NAG/2021 are identical to ITA No. 73/NAG/2021 except the variance in amount and period. Since, the facts in ITA Nos. 74 to 83/NAG/2021 are similar to ITA No. 73/NAG/2021, the findings given by us while deciding the grounds of appeal of assessee in ITA No. 73/NAG/2021 would mutatis mutandis apply to ITA Nos. 74 to 83/NAG/2021, as well. All the appeals of assessee are allowed, accordingly.

9.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th October, 2022.

Sd/- Sd/- (G.D. Padmahshali) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिनाांक / Dated : 19th October, 2022. RK आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Nagpur 4. The CIT(TDS), Nagpur दवभागीय प्रदतदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, नागपूर, 5. / DR, ITAT, Nagpur. गार्ड फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. //सत्यादपत प्रदत// True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

वररष्ठ ननजी सनिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अनिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 234E

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →