TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a highly debatable issue. By doing so, in our view, CIT(A) has also construed the appeal of the assessee as one against the order u/s 154 - This inference is supported from the observations made by the CIT(A) on the debatable nature of the issue raised by the assessee in the application u/s.154 of the Act. It is not in dispute that if the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateeraj Singhvi [ 2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] if applied then the levy of interest u/s.234-E of the Act would be illegal for returns of TDS in respect of the period prior to 1.6.2015. The present appeals of the assessee relate to TDS returns filed prior to 1.6.2015. The decision of Fateeraj Singhvi (supra)was rendered on 26.8.2016. As rightly contended by assessee, there is no ambiguity in the non applicability of the provisions of section 200A of the Act for the period prior to 01.06.2015 as interpreted in the case of Fateeraj Singhvi (supra). Therefore the issue before the AO in the application under section 154 of the Act cannot be said to be a debatable issue on which two views are possible. It cannot also be said that the mistake is not obvious and patent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e may be. (3) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed application u/s.154 of the Act before the AO pointing out that the provisions of section 234E of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.7.2012. Section 200A of the Act is a provision which deals with how a return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act has to be processed and it reads as follows:- Processing of statements of tax deducted at source. 200A. (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source or a correction statement has been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 200, such stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intimation u/s. 200A of the Act while processing return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act, could not levy fee u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of statement of TDS filed prior to 1.6.2015. The assessee, thus, challenged the validity of charging of fee u/s. 234E of the Act. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 wherein the Hon ble Karnataka High Court held that amendment made u/s. 200A providing that fee u/s. 234E of the Act could be computed at the time of processing of return and issue of intimation has come into effect only from 1.6.2015 and had only prospective effect and therefore, no computation of fee u/s.234E of the Act for delayed filing of return of TDS while processing a return of TDS u/s.234E of the Act could have been made for tax deducted at source for the assessment years prior to 1.6.2015. 5. The CPC did not accept the plea of the Assessee as raised in the application u/s.154 of the Act and retained the levy of interest u/s.234-E of the Act. Against the said order of CPC, the Assessee filed appeals before CIT(A). 6. The CIT(A) found that in Form No.35 filed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee there is no specific ground with regard to rectification of mistake apparent on the record and therefore it was clear that the appeal filed by the assessee was one against the intimation under section 200A of the Act and not the order under section 154 of the Act. (iii) Since the appeal has been filed after more than 5 years, reckoned from the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act and since there was no application for condonation in delay in the appeal, the appeal itself is not maintainable. (iv) Since there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal has been shown by the assessee, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. 8. For the above reasons, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee. The dates of intimation under section 200A of the Act and the date of the order under section 154 of the Act as given above is as per the dates in ITA No.462/Bang/2022. Dates of section 200A intimation and the order under section 154 of the Act are different in some of the appeals and these details are given in the table given below: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2016 22.09.2014 24.09.2021 482/Bang/2022 15.04.2016 17.09.2019 24.09.2021 483/Bang/2022 10.02.2015 22.09.2014 24.09.2021 9. The facts and the decision of the CIT(A), however, remains that the same and the common thread of reasoning of the CIT(A) in all these appeals is the same as stated in the earlier paragraph of this order. 10. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. We may also mention that in ITA No.483/Bang/2022 in Form No.35 filed before the CIT(A), the assessee has given the Assessment Year wrongly instead of the correct Assessment Year 2014-15. We have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee who submitted as follows: a) That there is no ambiguity in the non-applicability of the provisions of section 200A of the Act for a period prior to 01.06.2015 as per the statute and clarifications issued by CBDT and consequently, non-appreciation of the prevailing position in law is a mistake apparent on record in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that the appeal filed by the assessee is an appeal against the original intimation under section 200A of the Act, dated 06.07.2018 has also observed that the issue sought to be raised by the assessee in the application under section 154 of the Act is a highly debatable issue. By doing so, in our view, the CIT(A) has also construed the appeal of the assessee as one against the order under section 154 of the Act. This inference is supported from the observations made by the CIT(A) on the debatable nature of the issue raised by the assessee in the application u/s.154 of the Act. 13. It is not in dispute that if the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateeraj Singhvi (supra) if applied then the levy of interest u/s.234-E of the Act would be illegal for returns of TDS in respect of the period prior to 1.6.2015. The present appeals of the assessee relate to TDS returns filed prior to 1.6.2015. The decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateeraj Singhvi (supra)was rendered on 26.8.2016. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee, there is no ambiguity in the non applicability of the provisions of section 200A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15.07.2013 07.05.2015 8 468/B/22 2013-14 24Q Q2 1,13,800/- 15.10.2013 07.05.2015 9 483/B/22 2013-14 24Q Q3 1,32,000/- 15.01.2014 06.11.2015 10 473/B/22 2013-14 24Q Q4 1,08,000/- 15.05.2014 06.11.2015 11 470/B/22 2013-14 26Q Q1 96,000/- 15.07.2013 12.11.2014 12 471/B/22 2013-14 26Q Q2 77,600/- 15.10.2013 07.11.2014 13 469/B/22 2013-14 26Q Q3 1,15,200/- 15.01.2014 15.08.2015 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
