TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Legislature deems it fit not to provide a remedy of appeal, so be it. Even in such a scenario it is not as if the aggrieved party is left remediless. Such aggrieved person can always approach the court in its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and in that perspective the Hon'ble High Court held the provision as intra vires the Constitution of India. The learned AR was made clear during the appellate proceedings that the levy of fees for default in furnishing the statement u/s 234E of the Act is not appealable as per the provisions of section 246A of the Act wherein the orders appealable before the learned CIT(A) have been enumerated. Considering all these aspects we hold that the levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act was not appealable before the learned CIT(A). TLevy of fee is not punitive in nature. It is levied for special service provided by the Department for late filing of statement. The Assessing Officer has no power to condone the delay in late filing of the statement of tax. In view of these facts the appeal of the assessee is not maintainable, hence the same is dismissed. - Decided against assessee - ITA No. 550/Ind/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsible person for deducting the tax and filing the quarterly TDS statements u/s 200(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is very well found brought under the definition of responsible person as defined in the section 204 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3.3 The appellant vide para 4 of the submissions, has contended that the quarterly statement of TDS can be filed only after the taxes are deducted and deposited with the government. In other words, the appellant has tried to state that the period of default shall be counted from the date of deducting and depositing of the tax till the filing of the statement which means the prescribed dates for filing the statements as per rule 31A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 r.w. section 200(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 shall have no meaning. The argument of the appellant is totally misplaced. The relevant provisions of the act are very clear which state as under :- Any person deducting any sum on or after the Ist day of April, 2005 in accordance with the provisions referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192 shall, after paying the tax deducted to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time, (prepare such statements for such period as may be presc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement within the prescribed due dates as specified under rule 31A(2) of IT Rules, 1962. The scheme of the interpretations. In normal circumstances, the question of interpretation of provisions and the words arise if there is ambiguity in the language., In the instant case, the provision is very clear which specifically says that the quarterly TDS statements had to be filed within the time prescribed under rule 31A(2) of the IT Rules r.w. section 200(3) of the IT Act, 1961. Further, the relevant section 234E of the IT Act clearly states that the penal fee shall be charged for violation of section 200(3) r.w. rule 31A(2) as such I do not find any requirement of further interpretation as brought out by the appellant. 3.6 Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pandian Chemicals vs. CIT; 262 ITR 278 has clearly laid down that the rules of interpretation will come into play only if there is any doubt with regard to the express language used in the provision. Where the words are unequivocal, there is no scope for importing the rule of liberal interpretation of an incentive provision. Similarly, Hon'ble ApexCourt in the case of CIT vs. Budda Raja Company 204 ITR 412 has hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us on the following grounds :- (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ld. CIT(A)-II is contrary to the facts of the case. (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. CIT(0A erred in law as well as on facts in confirming late fees u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (iii) The grounds on which appeal is dismissed by ld. CIT(A) is merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. (iv) The order u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not permit levy of late fees u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Hence invalid, illegal and needs to be quashed. (v) The provision of sec. 204 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Person responsible for dues u/s 192 to sec. 203AA and sec. 285 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not cover sec. 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hence none of the person has been held responsible u/s 204 for the default u/s 234E, Hence prays to quash the illegal and unlawful order. (vi) Levy of late fees u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unconstitutional because deductor is already penalized by way of interest on late payment u/s 201(1A). 3. In all these grounds the main issue involved is against the confirmat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber of deductors were not furnishing their returns or statement of tax deducted or collected at source within the prescribed time frame which was absolutely essential. This led to an additional work burden upon the Departmentdue to the fault of the deductor in not furnishing the information in time and which he was statutorily bound to furnish. It is in this light and to compensate for the additional work burden forced upon the Department that a fee was sought to be levied u/s 234E of the Act. The levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act is not punitive in nature but a fee which is fixed charge for the extra service which the Deptt. has to provide due to the late filing of the statements of tax deducted or collected at source. A person deducting the tax (the deductor) is allowed to file his statement of tax deducted at source beyond the prescribed time provided he pays the fee as prescribed under section 234E of the Act. In other words, the late filing of the returns or statements of tax deducted or collected at source is regularised upon payment of the fee as set out in section 234E. This is nothing but a privilege and a special service to the deductor allowing him to file the returns or s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
