Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL, HON. VICE- & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, HON.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, HON. VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, HON. JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through virtual hearing) to 427/NAG/2022 (A.Y. 2013-14 to 2016-17) M/s. Sricon Logistics Pvt. vs ACIT-TDS, Circle-1, Ltd., Sricon House, 25 Nagpur. Pragati Layout, Rajeev Nagar, Somalwada, Wardha Road, Nagpur-440 025 PAN: AACCE 1775 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Mahavir Atal, AR Revenue by : Shri Rish Kumar Bisen, DR Date of hearing : 22/08/2023 Date of pronouncement : 23/08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench:
These appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, all dated 09.09.2022 for A.Ys.2013-14 to 2016-17 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
The only issue raised in these appeals is the charging of late fees u/sec. 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) for the Q1 arising in A.Y. 2013-14 and Q1 to Q4 arising in A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16. -427/NAG/2022 M/s. Sricon Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 24 days each in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal. Ld.counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing, explained the delay, and after hearing the submissions, we observe that such delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide intention of the assessee, if any, in these cases, and such delay was rather caused due to various circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Furthermore, principally we observe that in these cases, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v. UOI & Ors. (2022) 440 ITR 26 (Ker.). Ld.DR also did not raise any objection for condonation of delay. Hence, the delay in filing all these appeals is condoned and the cases were heard and adjudicated on merits. Since the facts and circumstances and issues in these appeals are absolutely similar and identical, all the matters were heard together and disposed off vide this consolidated order.
The brief facts of the case(s) are that the assessee filed the TDS returns for the respective quarters belatedly. Based on that, the Assessing Officer (AO) levied late fee u/sec. 234E of the Act. The assessee approached the NFAC but without success. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has approached the Tribunal.
5.1 The solitary issue raised in these appeals is against confirmation of fee u/sec. 234E imposed by the AO. The assessment years involved 2 -427/NAG/2022 M/s. Sricon Logistics Pvt. Ltd. in these appeals are 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, which shows that the fees u/sec.234E has been imposed for the delay in furnishing the statements for quarters prior to 01/06/2015.
5.2 Sec. 200A deals with processing of statements of tax deducted at source. Clause (c) of sec.200A(1) was inserted by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01/06/2015 providing for levy of fee u/sec. 234E of the Act. In that view of the matter, such fee u/sec. 234E can be levied only for the default committed after 01/06/2015 and not prior to that. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v. UOI & Ors. (2022) 440 ITR 26 (Ker.) has confirmed the non-imposition of fee for the period prior to 01/06/2015. Similar view has been taken in JIJI Varghese v. ITO (TDS) (2022) 443 ITR 267 (Ker.) holding that no interest u/sec. 234E can be imposed for the period of respective assessment years prior to June 01, 2015. Thus, it is seen that issue raised in these appeals is covered in favour of the assessee. Following the precedents, we overturn the impugned order(s) on the sole issue. 6 That, this appeal pertains to A.Y. 2016-17. In this regard, ld.AR submitted that they are in appeal for the first quarter for the F.Y. 2015-16 comprising from April to June. In this regard, he submitted that for the months of April and May, fees u/sec. 234E will not be leviable. Since the powers to the Department have been given from -427/NAG/2022 M/s. Sricon Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 01/06/2015, therefore, for June only for F.Y. 2015-16, the fees would be leviable. Therefore, for the first two months of April and May for the first quarter in F.Y. 2015-16, the case-laws as aforestated shall apply.
We are of the considered view, after considering the facts and circumstances and the aforesaid judicial pronouncements that the appeals of the assessee in to 426/NAG/2022 are covered by the above stated judicial pronouncements and also for ITA No. 427/NAG/2022 for A.Y. 2016-17 in the first quarter of F.Y. 2015-16 for the months of April and May i.e. also covered by the aforestated pronouncements, however, for the month of June, the fee has been rightly levied u/sec. 234E of the Act by the Department on the assessee, therefore the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 427/NAG/2022 is partly allowed.
In the combined result, appeals filed by the assessee in to 426/NAG/2022 are allowed and in ITA No. 427/NAG/2022 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 23rd August, 2023.