S V V S S D S S SCHOOL,ANNAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, Judicial Member :

All the captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in various orders dated 03/01/2023 for the AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are identical, for the sake of

2 convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and

disposed off in this consolidated order.

I.T.A. No.74 TO 81/Viz/2023

(AY: 2014-15 & 2015-16)

appeals pertaining to AY 2014-15 and 2015-16. Therefore, for

the sake of reference the grounds of appeal raised in ITA

No.74/Viz/2023 are extracted herein below:

“1. The CPC-TDS is not correct in levying the late filing fee U/s. 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

74/Viz/2023) are that the assessee is an Educational Institution

and provides education to the students in Annavaram and is run

by Annavaram Devasthanam. For the FY 2013-14 relevant to the

AY 2014-15 the assessee filed the Quarterly TDS returns after the

3 due date. These TDS returns were processed by the Income Tax

Department and intimations u/s. 200A of the Act were issued. In

the intimations, the Ld. AO had levied late filing fee u/s. 234E of

the Income Tax Act, 1961 and raised the demand. Aggrieved by

the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before

the Ld. CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC observed that as

the amendment in section 200A brought in by the Finance Act

2015 is prospective in nature and therefore the Ld. AO is justified

in levying of late fee u/s. 200A r.w.s 234E since the defaults are

subsequent to 1/6/2015. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC,

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of

the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the

Tribunal.

Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] that the enabling provision for

computation of fee while processing the statements was inserted

in section 200A only w.e.f 1/6/2015 and therefore, the charging

section i.e., section 234E cannot be enforced prior to 1/6/2015.

The Ld. AR further submitted that the amended provision applies

for all the returns pertaining to the period after 1/6/2015 and

not for the returns pertaining to the period prior to 01/06/2015

4 notwithstanding the fact that the returns pertaining to the period

prior to 01/06/2015 were filed after 01/06/2015 or processed

after 01/06/2015. The Ld. AR further submitted that in the

present case, the due date for filing the TDS returns is

15/07/2013 (For Q1 of FY 2013-14) and the TDS returns were

filed on 09/12/2015 therefore section 234E cannot be enforced

since it is prior to 1/6/2015. The Ld. AR therefore submitted that

the Ld. Revenue Authorities erred in levying and confirming the

levy of late fee U/s. 234E of the Act while processing the TDS

return U/s. 200A of the Act for the relevant period under

consideration. In support of his view the Ld. AR relied on the

judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of

Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252

(Karnataka); judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the

case of United Metals vs. ITO (TDS) reported in [2022] 137

taxmann.com 115 (Kerala); decision of the Pune Bench of the

Tribunal in the case of Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital,

Nashik vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad in ITA Nos. 651 to

661/Pun/2018, dated 25/10/2018. The Ld. AR further

submitted that since the Ld.CIT(A) relied only the judgments of

the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikat

Kundalia (supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat

5 High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani vs. Union of India

(supra) and ignored the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka

High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra); judgment of

the Kerala High Court in the case of United Metals (supra) and

decisions of various Benches of the Tribunal which is against the

spirit and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of CIT vs. M/s. Vegbetable Products Ltd (1973) 88 ITR

192 (SC) wherein it was held that when there is difference of

opinion between different High Courts on the an issue, the one

which is in favour of the assessee needs to be followed. The Ld.

AR therefore pleaded that the decision of the Ld. Revenue

Authorities may be set-aside and the assessee may be granted

relief by deleting the late fee levied U/s. 234E of the Act.

relied on the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the levy /

imposition of late fee u/s. 234E of the Act by the Ld. AO. It is

the submission of the Ld. DR that since the assessee filed its TDS

statement beyond the stipulated time as per the TDS provisions,

the late fee levied on account of default in furnishing the

statements beyond the prescribed time limit is as per the

provisions of the IT Act, 1961. The Ld. DR further submitted that

6 the fee charged U/s. 234E is not in lieu of penalty as the fee

charged under section 234E is not in the nature of penalty and is

a fee which the deductor shall be liable to pay in the event of

delay in filing the TDS statements as prescribed. The Ld. DR

further submitted that the Fee charged U/s. 234E is a fixed fee

charged in the case of statements are rendered beyond the

stipulated time which is happened in the instant case. The Ld.

DR also submitted that it is rightly observed by the Hon’ble

Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia vs.

Union of India (supra) “because of late filing of TDS statements

Department is overburdened with extra work which is otherwise

not required if the TDS statements are furnished within the

prescribed time limit.” The Ld. DR also heavily relied on the

decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh

Kourani vs. Union of India (supra) for the proposition that “a

machinery provision (section 200A) cannot override the substantive

provision of law”. The Ld. DR therefore pleaded that since the

action taken by the Ld. Revenue Authorities is in accordance the

provisions of the Act and also in accordance with law, as

discussed above, and hence the order of the Ld. Revenue

Authorities need not be disturbed / interfered with.

7 6. I have heard both the sides, perused the material available

on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities.

The main question that arises in this appeal is whether TDS

returns pertaining to the period prior to 01/06/2015, if filed

after 01/06/2015 and processed after 01/06/2015 whether they

attract the amended provisions of Finance Act, 2012 and the

specific provision for levy of “fee” under section 234E of the Act

which was inserted w.e.f 1/6/2015. In the present case the

assessee filed its TDS statement for the 1st Quarter of FY 2013-14

on 09/12/2015 whereas the due date for filing the TDS returns is

15/07/2013. The Ld. AO treating this filing / furnishing of TDS

statement as a default since it is not filed within the stipulated

time as per the TDS provisions and imposed late fees u/s. 234E

of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the

Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal.

considered view since the enabling provision for computation of

fee while processing the statements was inserted in section 200A

only w.e.f 1/6/2015 and therefore, the charging section i.e.,

section 234E cannot be enforced to the cases prior to 1/6/2015.

Further, I am of the view that the amended provision applies for

all the returns pertaining to the period after 1/6/2015 and not

for the returns pertaining to the period prior to 01/06/2015

notwithstanding the fact that the returns pertaining to the period

prior to 01/06/2015 were filed after 01/06/2015 or processed

after 01/06/2015.

Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252

(Karnataka) observed that “one may at the first blush say that,

since the section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability

was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or

cause to be delivered the statement/s of TDS within the prescribed

time. But section 234E cannot be read in isolation and is required

to be read with the mechanism and the mode provided for its

enforcement……”. The observations and relevant held portions in

the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (supra) are

extracted herein below for reference:

"21. However, if Section 234E providing for fee was brought on the state book, keeping in view the aforesaid purpose and the intention then, the other mechanism provided for computation of fee and failure for payment of fee under Section 200A which has been brought about with effect from 1.6.2015 cannot be said as only by way of a regulatory mode or a regulatory mechanism but it can rather be termed as conferring substantive power upon the authority. It is true that, a regulatory mechanism by insertion of any provision made in the statute book, may have a retroactive character but, whether such provision provides for a mere regulatory mechanism or confers substantive power upon the

authority would also be a aspect which may be required to be considered before such provisions is held to be retroactive in nature. Further, when any provision is inserted for liability to pay any tax or the fee by way of compensatory in nature or fee independently simultaneously mode and the manner of its enforceability is also required to be considered and examined. Not only that, but, if the mode and the manner is not expressly prescribed, the provisions may also be vulnerable. All such aspects will be required to be considered before one considers regulatory mechanism or provision for regulating the mode and the manner of recovery and its enforceability as retroactive. If at the time when the fee was provided under Section 234E, the Parliament also provided for its utility for giving privilege under Section 271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondent-Revenue that insertion of clause (c) to (f) under Section 200A(1) should be treated as retroactive in character and not prospective. 22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Under the circumstances, we find that substitution made by clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under Section 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest."

Metals vs. ITO (TDS) reported in [2022] 137 taxmann.com 115

(Kerala) observed as under:

“Amendment in section 200A by way of incorporating sub-clause (c) to clause (f) which referred to computation of fee payable under section 234E was brought into effect from 1/6/2015, therefore, demand raised for levying late fee under section 234E for period prior to 1/6/2016 would not be sustainable.”

25/10/2018 in the case of Medical Superintendent Rural

Hospital, Nashik vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS) (supra), has observed as

under:

“16…………..the Assessing Officer while processing TDS returns / statements for the period prior to 01/06/2015 was not empowered to charge late filing fees under section 234E of the Act, even in the cases where such TDS returns were filed belatedly after June, 2015 and even in cases where the Assessing Officer processed the said TDS returns after June, 2015. Accordingly……………the demand raised by charging late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act is not valid and the same is deleted.”

before the said date ie., 01/06/2015, there is no merit in

charging late filing fee U/s. 234E of the Act. Accordingly the Ld.

AO is directed to delete the fee levied U/s. 234E of the Act in the

order passed U/s. 200A of the Act. Since I hold that the no late

filing fee is to be charged, the consequential interest charged

U/s. 220(2) of the also does not survive. Thus, the grounds

raised by the assessee are allowed.

of appeal as well as the issue raised in these appeals are

identical to that the of the grounds and the issue raised in the

11 appeal ITA No. 74/Viz/2023, which is adjudicated in the above

paragraphs of this order, my decision given thereof mutatis

mutandis applies to the present appeals (ITA Nos. 75 to

81/Viz/2023) also. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the

assessee are allowed.

allowed.

ITA Nos. 82 to 89/Viz/2023 (AYs: 2016-17 & 2017-18)

CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi dated 03/01/2023 arising out of the orders passed

u/s. 200A of the Act for the AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18.

its appeals:

“1. The CPC-TDS is not correct in levying the late filing fee U/s. 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

12 16. The crux of the issue involved in these appeal is whether the

return pertaining to the period prior to 01/06/2015 but filed

after 01/06/2015 and processed after 01/06/2015 attract the

amended provisions of section 200A read with section 234E

inserted w.e.f 01/06/2015 which is a specific provision for levy of

fee for default in furnishing the TDS statements belatedly.

taken as lead appeal considering the similarity of the facts in all

the instant appeals, the assessee filed its TDS statement for the

1st Quarter of FY 2015-16 on 09/12/2015 whereas the due date

for filing of the TDS returns is 15th July, 2015. Accordingly, the

Ld. AO vide order passed U/s. 200A, dated 12/12/2015 imposed

a late fees U/s. 234E of the Act. In this case since the assessee

has filed its TDS returns on 09/12/2015 whereas the due date is

15th July, 2015 which is after the date of insertion of specific

provision for levy of late fee U/s. 234E ie., 01/06/2015.

Therefore, the action taken by the Ld. AO in levying the late fee

for default in furnishing the TDS statement beyond the stipulated

time is in accordance with law. As well, the decision of the Ld.

CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in confirming the order of the Ld. AO cannot

find fault with. Therefore, I have no hesitation to come to a

13 conclusion that the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities invoking the provisions of section 234E in order to levy late fee for default in furnishing the TDS statement beyond the stipulated time is in accordance with law and accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee are hereby dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Court on 03rd April, 2023.

Sd/- (दु�वू� आर.एल रे�डी) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) �या�यकसद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated : 03/04/2023 OKK - SPS

14 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. �नधा�रती/ The Assessee– SVVSSDSS School, Beside NH-5, Annavaram- 533406. 2. राज�व/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Income Tax Office, D.No.46-20-15, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 4.आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, �वशाखापटणम/ DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6.गाड� फ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam