TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PC order relates to quarters for F.Y. 2014-15 and earlier years, and the tax has been deposited before 01.06.2015 will have no relevance. This contentions of the Ld. counsel for the assessee has no merits. There is a clear provision in the scheme giving powers to the CPC to process the TDS return any the manner as specified u/s 200A(1) of the Act which provides that the statement shall be processed with regard to the tax deducted, arithmetical error incorrect claim, interest as well as the fee u/s 234E and other adjustment as provided in sub-section (1) of section 200A of the Act. So in our considered view CPC have sufficient power to levy fee u/s 234E of the Act for late filing of TDS return. As relying on SHRI UTTAM CHAND GANGWAL M/S ADINATH STONES VERSUS THE ACIT, CPC (TDS) , GHAZIABAD [ 2019 (1) TMI 1355 - ITAT JAIPUR] CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act by the CPC, however we direct the revenue authorities to make necessary verification in each of the case so as to look into the fact that in case if any fee u/s 234E is levied for the delay in filing return for the period before 01.06.2015, the same is directed to be deleted and the remaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015-16 Q-3 01.09.2016 05.09.2016 ₹ 46000/- 2015-16 Q-4 01.09.2016 05.09.2016 ₹ 21600/- District Organizer Tribal Welfare ITANo.675 676/Ind/2018 2013-14 Q-4 16.09.2016 23.09.2016 ₹ 1,71,000/- 2014-15 Q-4 16.09.2016 23.09.2016 ₹ 98,000/- Rohit Singh Indore ITANo.422 423/Ind/2019 2013-14 Q-4 02.02.2015 09.01.2017 ₹ 36,759/- 2014-15 Q-4 21.09.2016 24.09.2016 ₹ 99,000/- Assistant Director Horticulture Indore ITANo. 30/Ind/2018 2014-15 Q-1 04.09.2015 08.09.2015 ₹ 59,117/- 2014-15 Q-4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts referred and relied by both assessee and revenue. The common issue raised in all these appeals is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act. For adjudication of the issue before us, two sections are relevance namely; 200A and 234E of the Act. For the sake of convenience both the sections are reproduced below: Section 200A (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source has been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 200, such statement shall be processed in the following manner, namely:- (a) the sums deductible under this Chapter shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:- (i) any arithmetical error in the statement; or (ii) an incorrect claim, apparent from any information in the statement; (b) the interest, if any, shall be computed on the basis of the sums deductible as computed in the statement; (c) the fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E; the sum payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the deductor shall be determined after adjustment of the amount computed under clause (b)and clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Fatehraj Singhvi Vs UOI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 and applying the same to decide the cases of Bhupesh Kumar J. Sanghvi and others in ITANos.15 to 21/Ind/2018 others vide order dated 22.01.2019 and in the case of State Bank of India, Genda Chowk and others vs. DCIT(TDS), in ITANos. 727 737/Ind/2017 and others dated 13.11.2018. 10. Now we first take in ITANo. 422/Ind/2019 in the case of Rohit Singh for which return of Q-4 for F.Y.2014-15, date of filing TDS return is 02.02.2015, CPC passed the order on 09.01.2017 wherein fee u/s 234E was levied at ₹ 36,759/-. Proviso to section 200A(1) of the Act, contemplates that no intimation under this sub-section shall be sent after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in the statement is filed. 11. Now, applying this proviso on the facts of the case, we find that the assessee filed TDS return during F.Y. 2014-15. Last date by which the intimation could have been sent by the CPC was 31.03.2016 whereas the date of CPC order for Q-4 for F.Y. 2013-14 is 09.01.2017. It clearly shows that the order of CPC is barred by limitation and the same is liable to be quashed. We accordingly quash the order of CPC and dele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecified u/s 200A(1) of the Act which provides that the statement shall be processed with regard to the tax deducted, arithmetical error incorrect claim, interest as well as the fee u/s 234E of the Act and other adjustment as provided in sub-section (1) of section 200A of the Act. So in our considered view CPC have sufficient power to levy fee u/s 234E of the Act for late filing of TDS return. 14. Now coming to the last contention as well as main issue that whether in all the remaining cases except that of Rohit Singh in ITANo.422/Ind/2019 whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in levying the fee u/s 234E of the Act. The common fact in all these cases are that the date of filing TDS return as well as date of CPC order is after 01.06.2015. We observe that recently Coordinate Bench of Jaipur in the case of Shri Uttam Chand Gangwal Vs ACIT in ITA No. 764/JP/2017 dated 23/01/2019 adjudicated the similar issue of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act in the TDS return and the CPC order passed after 01.06.2015. Following decision was rendered by the Coordinate Bench: In the instant case, the assessee filed its TDS return in Form No. 26Q for the quarter ended 31st March, 2015 on 22nd July, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
