2019 (1) TMI 1355 - AT - Income Tax

Intimation issued u/s 200A - penalty u/s 234E for the delay in filing the TDS return - Held that - AO has acquired the jurisdiction to levy the fees as on 1.06.2015 and therefore any return filed and processed after 1.6.2015 will fall within his jurisdiction where on occurrence of any default on part of the assessee he can levy fee so mandated u/s 234E. Therefore irrespective of the period to which the quarterly return pertains where the return is filed after 1.6.2015 the AO can levy fee u/s 234E. In terms of determining the period for which fees can be levied only saving could be that for the period of delay falling prior to 1.06.2015 there could not be any levy of fees as the assumption of jurisdiction to levy such fees have been held by the Courts to be prospective in nature. However where the delay continues beyond 1.06.2015 AO is well within his jurisdiction to levy fees under section 234E for the period starting 1.06.2015 to the date of actual filing of the TDS return. In light of the same in the instant case the levy of fees under section 234E is upheld for the period 1.06.2015 to the date of actual filing of the TDS return which is 22.07.2015 and the balance fee so levied is hereby deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction and validity of order u/s 200A of the Act dated 30.07.2015.
2. Imposition of late fees u/s 234E of the Act by the AO.
3. Validity of the levy of penalty u/s 234E of the Act.

Issue 1: Jurisdiction and Validity of Order u/s 200A of the Act dated 30.07.2015:
The appeal challenged the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty imposed under section 200A of the Act dated 30.07.2015. The TDS return was filed after the due date, leading to the penalty imposition. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty citing adjustments under section 200A(1)(c) as valid post the processing of the TDS return. The appellant argued that prior to the amendment in section 200A w.e.f 01.06.2015, the AO lacked authority to levy fees for the period before the amendment. The appellant relied on a previous case to support the claim. The Revenue contended that the penalty was justified post the amendment to section 200A. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that the AO lacked authority to charge fees under section 234E for periods before 01.06.2015. However, for delays post that date, the AO had the jurisdiction to levy fees. In this case, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under section 234E for the period from 1.06.2015 to the date of filing of the TDS return, partially allowing the appeal.

Issue 2: Imposition of Late Fees u/s 234E of the Act by the AO:
The appellant contested the late fee imposed under section 234E of the Act by the AO for delayed filing of the TDS return. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy based on adjustments under section 200A(1)(c) post the processing of the return. The appellant argued that the AO lacked authority to levy fees for periods before the amendment in section 200A. The Revenue supported the penalty imposition post the amendment. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that the AO could not charge fees under section 234E for periods before 01.06.2015. However, for delays post that date, the AO had the jurisdiction to levy fees. In this case, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under section 234E for the period from 1.06.2015 to the date of filing of the TDS return, partially allowing the appeal.

Issue 3: Validity of the Levy of Penalty u/s 234E of the Act:
The validity of the levy of penalty under section 234E of the Act was a key contention in the appeal. The appellant challenged the imposition of late fees by the AO for delayed filing of the TDS return. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the penalty citing adjustments under section 200A(1)(c) post the processing of the return. The appellant argued that the AO lacked authority to levy fees for periods before the amendment in section 200A. The Revenue supported the penalty imposition post the amendment. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that the AO could not charge fees under section 234E for periods before 01.06.2015. However, for delays post that date, the AO had the jurisdiction to levy fees. In this case, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under section 234E for the period from 1.06.2015 to the date of filing of the TDS return, partially allowing the appeal.

In summary, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the penalty under section 234E for the period from 1.06.2015 to the date of filing of the TDS return. The case highlighted the jurisdictional aspects post the amendment in section 200A and the authority of the AO to levy fees under section 234E. The decision provided clarity on the application of penalties for delayed filing of TDS returns, emphasizing the timeline of the filing concerning the amendment date.