INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), CUTTACK V. DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETY SERVICES, CUTTACK

ITA 421/CTK/2024

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the Income Tax Officer (TDS), Cuttack against the Directorate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Cuttack, concerning the levy of late fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act for the financial years 2012-13 and 2014-15. The primary legal issue was whether the late fees could be levied for the quarters in question, given that the enabling provision (section 200A) had not yet come into effect at the time of the relevant assessments. The CIT(A) had previously ruled in favor of the assessee, a decision which the revenue challenged in the tribunal. The tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and relevant legal provisions, upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions, citing adherence to judicial discipline and precedent.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25960 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2024
• Other Referred Cases: TB and ID Hospital vs ITO- TDS(1), Fatehraj Singhvi & Ors vs Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.C.MOHANTY
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 234E; 200A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE MANISH AGARWAL Income Tax Officer (TDS), Aayakar Bhawan, Shelter Square, Cuttack PAN/TAN No. (Appellant Per Bench These are the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 12/10203855, 12/10203854,NFAC/2011 quarters of Financial year 2013 and 15, respectively against levy of late fees u/s IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.420 to 422/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA Nos.423 to 424/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Aayakar Bhawan, Shelter Square, Cuttack Vs. Directorate of Animal Husbandry and Vety Services, Mangalabag, Buxibazar, Cuttack No.BBNDO 0071 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 29/10/20 Date of Pronouncement : 29/10/20 O R D E R These are appeals filed by the revenue against the separate the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi all dated 16.8.2024 in Appeal No. NFAC/2011-12/10203856, NFAC/2011-12/10203857,NFAC/2013-14/10203861 of Financial year 2013 and two quarters of financial year 2014 15, respectively against levy of late fees u/s.234E of the Act. P a g e 1 | 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Directorate of Animal Husbandry and Vety , Mangalabag, Buxibazar, Cuttack Respondent) : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR 2024 024 separate orders of Appeal No. NFAC/2011- NFAC/2011- 14/10203861 for three of financial year 2014- .234E of the Act. P a g e 2 | 6 2. Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. None represented on behalf of the assessee. 3. At the time of hearing, ld Sr. D.R. placed before us the questionnaire sent by him to the ld CIT(TDS) and the reply there from, which reads as follows: “ P a g e 3 | 6 Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Sovesh Chandra Mohanty) Addl.CIT(ITAT)-1,Cuttack P a g e 4 | 6 4. It was the submission that the orders of ld CIT(A) granting relief to the assessee were perverse. 5. We have considered the submissions of ld Sr. DR. as also perused the orders of ld CIT(A). A perusal of the orders of ld CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld CIT(A) has considered the primary issue as to whether the levy of late fees is permissible under section 234E for three quarters of Financial P a g e 5 | 6 year 2012-13 and two quarters for Financial year 2014-15, especially in view of the fact that the intimation u/s.200A brought in statute w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Section 234E of the Act by itself cannot make computation without the provisions of section 200A of the Act, when the empowering section came into effect only w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Thus, the enabling provision came into effect only w.e.f. 1.6.2015, obviously, 234E would be leviable only from the time the enabling section came into effect. This being so, as also after noticing that the ld CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of TB and ID Hospital vs ITO- TDS(1) dated 27.8.2018 as also the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi & Ors vs Union of India (2016 (9) TMI 964 and also followed the judicial discipline, we find no error in the orders of ld CIT(A) to interfere in respect of three quarters of F.Y. 2012-13 and two quarter of F.Y. 2014-15. 6. In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 29/10/2024. Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 29/10/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) P a g e 6 | 6 Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.Secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : 2. The Respondent: 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// "