9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the ITA, 1961 for a period prior to 01/06/2015. The learned I-T Authorities ought to have appreciated that levy of fees u/s.234E of the ITA, 1961 was not permissible adjustment contemplated u/s.200A of the ITA, 1961 for the period prior to 01/06/2015." For the sake of convenience, first we would take up ITA No.2018/PUN/2017, assessment year 2013-14 for adjudication as lead case. ITA No.2018/PUN/2017 (A.Y.2013-14) (Q4-24Q) 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its TDS quarterly statement of 24Q and 26Q for different quarters and therefore, it was delayed filing of TDS return which are as follows: A.Y Type of return Date of original order of CPC Date of order u/s.154 Amount (Rs.) 2013-14 24Q-2 26.12.2013 13.02.2016 53,420 2013-14 24Q-3 26.12.2013 13.02.2016 30,240 2013-14 24Q-4 21.11.2016 --------- 53,680 2013-14 26Q-2 26.12.2013 13.02.2016 20,200 2013-14 26Q-3 26.12.2013 13.02.2016 8,060 The ACIT, CPC, Ghaziabad processed the return and sent intimation u/s.200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Assessing Officer had determined the late fee @ of Rs. 200/- per day u/s.234E of the I.T. Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P (C) 31498/2013(J)], Hon'ble Karanataka High Court in the case of Adithya Bizor P Solutions Vs Union of India [WP No. 6918-6938/2014(T-IT), Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Om Prakash DhootVs Union of India [WP No. 1981 of 2014] and of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant KundaliaVs Union of India [WP No. 771 of 2014], granting stay on the demands raised in respect of fees under section 234E. The full text of these decisions were not produced before us. However, as admittedly there are no orders from the Hon'ble Courts above retraining us from our adjudication on merits in respect of the issues in this appeal, and as, in our humble understanding, this appeal requires adjudication on a very short legal issue, within a narrow compass of material facts, we are proceeding to dispose of this appeal on merits. 5. We may produce, for ready reference, section 234E of the Act, which was inserted by the Finance Act 2012 and was brought into effect from 1st July 2012. This statutory provision is as follows: 234E. Fee for defaults in furnishing statements (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o intimation under this sub-section shall be sent after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed. Explanation : For the purposes of this sub-section, "an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the statement" shall mean a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the statement- (i) of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such statement; (ii) in respect of rate of deduction of tax at source, where such rate is not in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (2) For the purposes of processing of statements under sub-section (1), the Board may make a scheme for centralised processing of statements of tax deducted at source to expeditiously determine the tax payable by, or the refund due to, the deductor as required under the said subsection. 7. By way of Finance Act 2015, and with effect from 1st June 2015, there is an amendment in Section 200A and this amendment, as stated in the Finance Act 2015, is as follows: In section 200A of the Income-tax Act, in sub-section (1), for clauses (c) to (e), the following clauses shall be substituted with effect from the 1st day of June ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the CIT(A) ought to have examined legality of the adjustment made under this intimation in the light of the scope of the section 200A. Learned CIT(A) has not done so. He has justified the levy of fees on the basis of the provisions of Section 234E. That is not the issue here. The issue is whether such a levy could be effected in the course of intimation under section 200A. The answer is clearly in negative. No other provision enabling a demand in respect of this levy has been pointed out to us and it is thus an admitted position that in the absence of the enabling provision under section 200A, no such levy could be effected. As intimation under section 200A, raising a demand or directing a refund to the tax deductor, can only be passed within one year from the end of the financial year within which the related TDS statement is filed, and as the related TDS statement was filed on 19th February 2014, such a levy could only have been made at best within 31st March 2015. That time has already elapsed and the defect is thus not curable even at this stage. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, the impugned levy of fees under section 234E i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee with regard to tax deducted at source by levying fee under section 234E of the Act. The Assessing Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in levying fee u/s.234E of the Act while processing the statement and made adjustment u/s.200A of the Act which is not justified. Thus while processing statement under section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot make any adjustment by levying fee under section 234E prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the considered opinion that the fee levied by the Assessing Officer under section 234E of the Act while processing the statement of tax deducted at source was beyond the scope of adjustment provided under section 200A of the Act and deleted the same the eye of law. 11. The Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sibia Healthcare (supra.) has opined that the matter in question was if the fees u/s.234E in respect of defaults in furnishing TDS statement could be levied in intimation u/s.200A of the Act so far as period prior to 1.06.2015 was concerned. It was held that the impugned levy of fee u/s.234E was unsustainable in law. 12. Similarly, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Krishna Art Sil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
