YOGENDER KUMAR,BALLABHGARH vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), FARIDABAD

The solitary ground taken by the assessee is in respect of levy of fees of Rs.1,59,200 under Section 234E of the Act for failure to file return of TDS under Section 201A(1) read with section 194IA.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee had purchased immovable property on which TDS @ 1% under Section 194IA was required to be deducted while making payment to the seller and to be deposited in the government account. Assessee had deducted the TDS and deposited it into the government account, however, there was a delay in filing of TDS statement in Form 26QB. Owing to this delay in filing of TDS statement, learned AO levied a late filing fee of Rs.1,59,200 under Section 234E of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A) who confirmed the late filing fee imposed on the assessee.Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Before us, none represented the assessee. From the perusal of the material on record, we note that on last several occasions, nobody has represented the assessee and wherever there was a representation, it was for the purpose of seeking an adjournment. Further, we note that the issue involved in the present appeal is no longer res integra as the period for which the fee has been imposed is after the date of 01.06.2015 where from an amendment was brought in under Section 200A of the Act. With the ab le assistance of learned Sr. DR and taking into consideration the Yogender Kumar,Ballabhgarh AY: 2019-20 material available on record, we are inclined to take up the matter ex parte qua the assessee.

From the statement of facts contained in Form 35 filed before the learned CIT(Appeals), we had drawn the facts stated above. There was a delay in deduction and payment of TDS by the assessee. This delay resulted in delayed filing of TDS statement by the assessee because of which late filing fee under Section 234E was imposed by the learned AO.

It is pertinent to mention that assessee had the responsibility to comply with the applicable provisions of the Act. Under the Act, provisions of section 234E are attracted when there is default in furnishing of TDS statement. Provisions of section 234E came into force w.e.f. 01.07.2012. Further, provisions of section 200A(1)(c), (d) and (f) came into force w.e.f. 01.06.2015 whereby it was provided that the fee under Section 234E of the Act can be computed at the time of processing of return and intimation can be issued specifying the same, payable by the deductor as fee under Section 234E.The issue in the present appeal was dealt with by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Rajesh Kourani Vs. Union of India 83 taxmann.com 137 who after distinguishing the decision in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union of Yogender Kumar,Ballabhgarh AY: 2019-20 India 73 taxmann.com 252 (Kar.) observed that section 234E was introduced to make TDS provisions stringent which is a charging section and section 200A on the other hand is a machinery provisions for making prima facie adjustment. Considering the facts on record and the judicial precedents stated above, we find that late filing fee imposed by the learned AO in respect of delayed filing of TDS statement which is after the effective date of 01.06.2015 for the amendment brought in section 200A of the Act, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the finding of learned CIT(A) who had confirmed the fee imposed by the learned AO under Section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.