9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 852 - AT - Income TaxLate fees u/s 234E on account of late filing of TDS statement - order u/s 200A - whether there existed reasonable and bonafide cause which led to delay in filing of the TDS Statement? - HELD THAT - In the instant case admittedly there is a delay in filing the TDS statement and there is no allegation that the A.O. has violated any of the provisions of Section 234E or Section 200A of the Act the adjustment made by the A.O. on account of late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act therefore cannot be deleted on the ground of reasonable cause. In view of the same we agree with the findings of the ld CIT(A) and are not inclined to examine the merits or veracity of claim of reasonable cause as so claimed by the assessee and the same are thus dismissed at the very threshold and levy of late filing fee u/s 234E is hereby confirmed. Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Contravention of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the CIT(A). 2. Imposition of late fees under Section 234E for late filing of TDS statement. 3. Grounds for reasonable cause for delay in filing the TDS statement. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Contravention of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the CIT(A) The appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred in passing the order dated 19.04.2023, which is in contravention of the provisions of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, this issue was not elaborated upon in the judgment, and the primary focus was on the imposition of late fees under Section 234E. Issue 2: Imposition of Late Fees under Section 234E for Late Filing of TDS Statement The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the AO under Section 200A, which imposed late fees under Section 234E due to the late filing of the TDS statement. The appellant contended that there was a reasonable and bona fide cause for the delay in filing the TDS statement, and the deduction and deposit of TDS were made on time. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is mandatory and consequential, and there is no provision for condoning the delay on account of reasonable cause. Issue 3: Grounds for Reasonable Cause for Delay in Filing the TDS Statement The appellant provided several reasons for the delay in filing the TDS statement: - Lack of awareness about the requirement to file a separate TDS statement for non-resident sellers. - The appellant's mother was suffering from a chronic disease, requiring significant attention and care. - The nationwide lockdown due to COVID-19, which caused disruptions and delays. The appellant argued that these factors constituted a reasonable cause for the delay and cited various judicial decisions to support their claim. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is mandatory and cannot be waived based on reasonable cause. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal examined the matter in detail and referred to the decision of the Coordinate Jaipur Benches in the case of Block Development Officer, Chaksu, Jaipur Vs. ACIT. The Tribunal noted that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is mandatory and the AO has no discretion to waive the fees based on reasonable cause. The Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Coordinate Chandigarh Bench in the case of Gurpreet Singh, which distinguished between technical errors and delays in filing TDS statements. In the instant case, the delay in filing the TDS statement was admitted, and there was no allegation that the AO violated any provisions of Section 234E or Section 200A. Therefore, the adjustment made by the AO on account of late filing fees under Section 234E could not be deleted based on reasonable cause. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, confirming the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E. The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees is mandatory and cannot be waived based on reasonable cause. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
|
