TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 24-11-2014. Due to a technical error, since the seller could not get credit of TDS deposited in the initial deposit, on the advise of Revenue Authorities, the assessee had again deposited TDS along with late filing interest ₹ 46,977/- payable for 14 months on 16-12-2015. Ld. CIT(A) also did not appreciate that had the assessee at the time of initial deposit of TDS mentioned the correct PAN numbers i.e. had the assessee not committed the aforesaid technical error, there would have been no question of levy of interest u/s 234E of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also did not take cognizance of the fact that in the facts of the case, there was no loss caused to the Revenue. In the case of CIT v. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries Ltd. [ 1992 (9) TMI 67 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] took the view that the benefit of exemption should not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the same and it is permissible for the assessee to produce the audit report at a later stage either before the Income-tax Officer or before the appellate authority by assigning sufficient cause. In view of various authorities cited above, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince the appellant had deposited TDS of ₹ 2,23,775 first on 24-11-2014 i.e. before date of sale and again redeposited the same amount of TDS (together with interest of ₹ 46,977) on 16-12-2015 with PAN of the appellant as a buyer for filing amended Form No. 26QB. It is submitted that there is no default u/s 234E if filing of date of original Form 26QB is treated as a cause of action for reckoning default thereunder 1.5 It is submitted that Late Filing Levy of ₹ 74,600 is imposed u/s 200A without specifying section whereunder it is levied and in any case beyond scope of permissible adjustment then in force thereunder 1.6 It is, therefore, submitted that lenient view be taken and late filing levy of ₹ 74,600 be cancelled. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter and/or to amend all or any of the grounds of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has purchased an immovable property from Mrs. Lilavati Jhaveri (seller) for a sum of ₹ 2,23,77,500/- by a registered sale deed on 25-11-2014. The assessee deducted tax u/s. 194-IA of the Act @ 1% amounting to ₹ 2,23,775/- and deposited the same with the Governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch deals with processing of the Statements prescribed the specific provision for levy of fee under section 234E was inserted w. e. f. 1.6. 2015. The main grievance of the appellant is that though section 234E came into effect w.e.f. 1.6. 2012 but since the enabling provision for computation of fee while processing the statements was inserted in Section 200A w.e.f. 1.6.2015 only the charging section i.e. section 234 E cannot be enforced prior to 1.6.2015. 6.1 Recently, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Rajesh Kourani vs. Union Of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 ( Gujarat) have comprehensively dealt with the issues arising in the present appeal . On the ground of the appellant that the provisions of section 234E cannot be applicable prior to 01.06.2015 i.e. the date w.e.f. the provision was inserted in section 200A of the Act, The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani (supra) held the following: 19. In plain terms, section 200A of the Act is machinery provision providing mechanism for processing a statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustment, which are as noted earlier, arithmetical or prima-facie in nat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision concerning charging and computing capital gain observed that none of the these provisions suggest that they include an asset in the acquisition of which no cost can be conceived. In such a case, the asset is sold and the consideration is brought to tax, what is charged is a capital value of the asset and not any profit or gain. This decision therefore would not apply in the present case. 6.2 As the issue in ground of appeal and in the submission made in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Rajesh Kourani (supra), respectfully following the same, I am not inclined to accept the appellant's contentions and accordingly, the action of the AO levying fee u/s.234E is hereby upheld. 7. In the, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that section 234E, providing for Fee for default in furnishing TDS Statement was enacted w.e.f. 1-7-2012 and since there was then admitted legal lacuna as to lack of jurisdiction for imposing levy thereunder, several Hon'ble High Court orders struck off such levy and therefore the Central Government, realizing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions made by Ld. CIT(A) in the appeal order. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perusal the material on record. We note that in the present facts, the assessee had initially deposited the entire TDS in respect of purchase of immovable property on 24-11-2014 u/s 194-IA of the Act i.e. within the due date from purchase of immovable property. Due to certain technical error committed (incorrect interchanging of PAN numbers of buyer and seller in online filing of Statement 26QB), the seller could not get credit of TDS and later, on the advise of Revenue authorities again the buyer (the assessee) paid the TDS again amount along-with interest for late deposit. The CPC, Ghaziabad processed revised form 26QB filed on 16-12-2015 u/s. 200(A)(1) and on 07-02-2016 raised a demand of late fee of ₹ 74,600/- u/s. 234E of the Act. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), mechanically relied upon the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Rajesh Kourani vs. Union Of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Gujarat) to uphold levy of late filing fee of ₹ 74,600/- u/s. 234E of the Act for late filing of TDS statement. However, in our considered view, the issue for consideration in Rajesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for consideration and facts before us are different as compared to Rajesh Kourani case ( supra), on which reliance has been mechanically placed by Ld. CIT(A). It is a settled law as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajkot Engineering Association v. UOI [1986] 26 Taxman 60 (Gujarat) that the Revenue authorities should adopt a judicial approach and consider all attendant circumstances. Again, the Gujarat High Court in the case of Trust For Reaching The Unreached Through Trustee v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad[2021] 126 taxmann.com 77 (Gujarat) has stressed the need for the Revenue Authorities taking a judicious approach. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust v. ITO 2021] 125 taxmann.com 75 (Gujarat) held that the approach of the authorities should be justice oriented so as to advance the cause of justice. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries Ltd. [1993] 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) , took the view that the benefit of exemption should not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the same and it is permissible for the assessee to produce the audit report at a late ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
