TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view that the reliance placed by the NFAC, on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S.Dilip Kumar Co. (supra) to sustain the levy of interest u/s.234-E of the Act, cannot be sustained. We are of the view that the levy of interest u/s.234E of the Act in the present case cannot be sustained and the same is directed to be deleted and the appeals of the Assessee are allowed. - ITA No. 593/Bang/2022 To 672/Bang/2022 - - - Dated:- 5-9-2022 - SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Mr.Hardik Chordia, CA Respondent by : Dr.K.Shankar Prasad, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. ORDER Per Bench These are a batch of 80 appeals filed by different branches of the Assessee/Appellant Bank, against different orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, relating to Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2015-16. The details of the various branches and the orders of the NFAC, Delhi, are given as an annexure to this order. ITA No Branch Name TAN of Branch Financial Year Form Type ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Q2 1600 NFAC/2012- 13/10069182 14-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 602/Bang/2022 BELADHARA BLRK12200G 2012-13 26Q Q4 3800 NFAC/2011- 12/10069723 17-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 603/Bang/2022 BELUR BLRK12381F 2012-13 26Q Q4 1200 NFAC/2011- 12/10068103 14-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 604/Bang/2022 BELUR BLRK12381F 2014-15 26Q Q1 3710 NFAC/2013- 14/10066811 14-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 605/Bang/2022 BHOGADI BLRK12257A 2014-15 26Q Q3 212689 NFAC/2013- 14/10067411 14-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 606/Bang/2022 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HIKMAGALUR BLRK12441C 2012-13 26Q Q4 7400 NFAC/2011- 12/10069709 10-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 616/Bang/2022 CHIKMAGALUR BLRK12441C 2013-14 26Q Q3 43200 NFAC/2012- 13/10069352 10-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 617/Bang/2022 CHIKMAGALUR BLRK12441C 2014-15 26Q Q1 5800 NFAC/2013- 14/10066673 10-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 618/Bang/2022 CHIKMAGALUR BLRK12441C 2014-15 26Q Q2 2800 NFAC/2013- 14/10066669 10-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 619/Bang/2022 DEVARAPURA BLRK12431G 2013-14 26Q Q4 16600 NFAC/2012- 13/1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01-08-2022 ITA 629/Bang/2022 MAVATHUR BLRK12151G 2012-13 26Q Q4 5800 NFAC/2011- 12/10069896 09-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 630/Bang/2022 MAVATHUR BLRK12151G 2014-15 26Q Q1 246400 NFAC/2013- 14/10065205 09-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 631/Bang/2022 MUDALAHIPPE BLRK12297F 2012-13 26Q Q4 13600 NFAC/2011- 12/10069898 14-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 632/Bang/2022 MYLANAHALLY BLRK12407D 2012-13 26Q Q3 5800 NFAC/2011- 12/10069883 13-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 633/Bang/2022 MYLANAHALLY BLRK12407D 2012-13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NFAC/2013- 14/10066671 09-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 643/Bang/2022 TURUVEKERE BLRK12413C 2013-14 26Q Q1 4600 NFAC/2012- 13/10069167 17-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 644/Bang/2022 UNDIGANALU BLRK12186G 2014-15 26Q Q1 4600 NFAC/2013- 14/10066809 28-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 645/Bang/2022 PANCHAYATH BLRK12358D 2012-13 26Q Q4 1600 NFAC/2011- 12/10069714 14-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 646/Bang/2022 PANCHAYATH BLRK12358D 2014-15 26Q Q2 47794 NFAC/2013- 14/10067258 14-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 647/Bang/2022 GUBBI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26Q Q1 4820 NFAC/2012- 13/10069173 13-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 657/Bang/2022 IMMADIHALLY BLRK12406C 2013-14 26Q Q2 3200 NFAC/2012- 13/10069173 13-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 658/Bang/2022 IMMADIHALLY BLRK12406C 2013-14 26Q Q3 3460 NFAC/2012- 13/10069017 13-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 659/Bang/2022 IMMADIHALLY BLRK12406C 2014-15 26Q Q1 24600 NFAC/2013- 14/10066674 13-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 660/Bang/2022 IMMADIHALLY BLRK12406C 2014-15 26Q Q2 5520 NFAC/2013- 14/10066670 13-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ang/2022 KUVEMPUNAGAR (HSN) BLRK12234F 2013-14 26Q Q4 15400 NFAC/2012- 13/10069346 14-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 671/Bang/2022 SAKALESHPURA BLRK12302D 2012-13 26Q Q4 10200 NFAC/2011- 12/10069717 20-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 672/Bang/2022 SHIRANGALA BLRK12471E 2012-13 26Q Q3 3612 NFAC/2011- 12/10069713 17-Jun-22 01-08-2022 2. The assessee filed statement of tax deducted at source (TDS) for various quarters in Form No.26Q for AY 2013-14 to 2015-16 (Financial Years 2012-13 to 2015-16) in respect of its various branches set out in the annexure to this order. The statement was processed by the respondent. There was a delay in filing the above TDS statement and therefore the AO by intimation u/s. 200A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [ the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement; 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; (d) 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 (c) against any amount paid under section 200 or section 201 or section 234E and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest or fee; (e) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the deductor specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, him under clause (d); and (f) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (d) shall be granted to the deductor: Provided that no 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 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il Writ Petition No.8672/2014 dated 28.7.2015 has taken a view that even in the absence of Sec.200A of the Act with introduction of Sec.234E of the Act it was always open to the revenue to demand and collect fee for late filing of statement of TDS and that Sec.200A merely regulates the manner in which the computation of such fee would be made and demand raised. The NFAC/CIT(A) referred to decisions rendered by ITAT Mumbai in Ravi Rajkumar Valecha Vs. Assessing Officer, TDS Ward, Kalyan in ITA No.4822/Mum/2016 dated 15.6.2018 and another decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Nav-Alka Co-op.Housing Society Vs. DCIT(TDS) ITA No.4456 4457/Mum/2018 dated 4.10.2018 wherein the Tribunal after quoting the aforesaid two conflicting decisions of Hon ble Gujarat and Karnataka High Court, held following decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vegetable Poducts Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC) wherein it was held that when two views are possible, the view which favours the assessee may be adopted, held that levy of interest u/s.234-E prior to 1.6.2015 was not valid. The NFAC/CIT(A) however referred to the decision of the Constitutional Bench of five Judges in the case of CCI Mumbai Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5) 156 ITR 11 (Bom.) held that in the case where there is conflict of views between different High Courts, authorities must follow the decision of the High Court within whose jurisdiction he is functioning. The Court further added that in cases where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts, the ITO must take the view which is in favour of the assessee and not against him. In CIT -vs.- Sunil Kumar (1996) 212 ITR 238 (Raj.) it was held that the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Income tax Authorities and the Tribunal within the jurisdiction of the Court and the contrary decision of another High Court is not relevant, and that a point decided by the Jurisdictional High Court can no longer be considered to be a debatable issue. In Baradakanta Mishra -vs.- Bhimsen Dixit AIR 1972 SC 2466 it was held as follows: It would be anomalous to suggest that a Tribunal over which the High Court has superintendence can ignore the law declared by that court and start proceedings in direct violations of it. If a Tribunal can do so, all the subordinate courts can equally do so, for there is no specific provision, just like in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he other hand, argued that the concessional duty rate had to be extended to animal feed supplement as well, in light of the Sun Export Case, wherein it was held that in case of two views possible, it is well- settled, that one favourable to the assessee in matters of taxation has to be preferred . After considering a catena of precedents, the Constitutional Bench answered the above question in the following manner: (1) Exemption notification should be interpreted strictly; the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption notification. (2) When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. (3) The ratio in Sun Export Case (supra) is not correct and all the decisions which took similar view as in Sun Export Case (supra) stands overruled. It is clear from the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, that it has brought out distinction between interpretation of a charging section of a taxing stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
