M/s Rajendra Agri Products P Ltd, Indore V. DCIT (TDS) , Indore

ITA 120/Ind/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Rajendra Agri Products Private Limited appealing against the demand of late filing fees imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Indore, under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The fees were levied for TDS returns filed for financial years prior to 01.06.2015, despite the fact that the legal provision allowing such penalties was not in effect until that date. The Tribunal examined the legality of the late fees imposed and referenced several judicial precedents which supported the assessee's position that the fees were incorrectly levied.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127197 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Sudershan Goyal Vs DCIT (TDS), Rajesh Kaurani vs. UOI, Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI, Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (TDS), Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS) Ghaziabad
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 234E; 200A; 192

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, इंदौर यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.120/Ind/2022 M/s Rajendra Agri Products Private Limited, Indore बनाम/ Vs. DCIT-TDS, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) TAN: BPLR 03722 F Assessee by Shri Prakash Jain, Ms. Shreya Jain, ARs Revenue by ShriAshishPorwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement 20.12.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani AM: 1. This appeal by assessee is against the appeal-order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre[“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2013-14/10033263, on following grounds: “1.The demand order of the Ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) is based on hypothetical presumption illegal, bad in law, unjustified and is beyond the facts and circumstances of the case. 2.The Ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) has erred in raising demand by notice date 02.02.2021 bearing F.No.DCIT/TDS/IND/Late filing fee/20-21/1565 raised outstanding demand of late filing fee u/s 234E by overlooking the provision of section 234E of the Income Tax Act 1961 relating to penalties for late filing of TDS returns which is effective from 1 June 2015. Rajendra Agri Products P. ltd. ITANo.120/Ind/2022 Page 2 of 6 Thus, in the absence of enabling provision before 1 June 2015, the power to levy the penalty u/s 234E was not conferred with the AO. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in raising following illegal demands: F.Y.2012-13 Rs.26800/- F.Y. 2013-14 Rs.118629/- F.Y.2014-15 Rs.101800/- F.Y. 2015-16 Rs.17600/- Total Rs.2,64,829/- In view of the provision u/s 234E of the income Tax Act, penalties levied prior to 1 st June 2015, cannot be levied and may kindly be waived. ” 2. We have heard the learned Representatives of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 3. Precisely stated the facts leading to these appeals are such that the assessee has filed statutory returns of TDS in Form No. 24Q/26Q/27EQ of various periods which were processed by Ld. AO who observed that the returns were filed belatedly beyond the time-limit prescribed in section 200(3) of the act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO charged late-fee u/s 234E of the act, aggregating to Rs. 4,46,838/-, as per period of delay committed by assessee, in the intimations issued u/s 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but, however, did not get any success. 4. Being aggrieved by order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has now come in appeal before us. 5. At the outset, it is to be noted that though the assessee challenged entire late-fee of Rs. 4,46,838/- in first-appeal before Ld. CIT(A), but, now before us the challenge is to the levy of late-fee of Rs. 2,64,829/- relating to Rajendra Agri Products P. ltd. ITANo.120/Ind/2022 Page 3 of 6 the period prior to 01.06.2015 only, which is clearly stated so in Ground No. 2 cited above. Thus, we are called upon to adjudicate to that extent only. 6. Ld. AR submits that impugned late-fee of Rs. 2,64,829/- is for the period prior to 01.06.2015 when there was no power in section 200A to levy such late- fee, therefore the late-fee charged by authorities is without any authority of law and deserves to be quashed. Ld. AR submits that the section 200A(1) was amended w.e.f. 01.06.2015 by inserting clause (c) therein and it is only thereafter the authorities were enabled to charge late-fee in the intimations u/s 200A. Therefore, it is very much clear that the authorities did not have any power to charge late-fee in respect of returns related to the period prior to 01.06.2015. In support of this proposition, Ld. AR relied upon certain decisions of different Courts / Benches of ITAT including the decisions of ITAT, Indore Bench itself in ITA Nos. 510/Ind/2019 in case of M/s. Keshav Industries Pvt. Ltd. & ITA Nos. 500 to 508/Ind/2019 Mr. Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, order dated 14.07.2020. The relevant paras of decision are reproduced below: “10. We also observe that the Co-ordinate Bench Agra in the case of SudershanGoyalVs DCIT (TDS) ITA No.442/Agra/2017 order dated 09.04.2018 considering the similar issue deciding in favour of the assessee observed as follows:- “The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether late filing fee u/s 234E of the IT Act has rightly been charged in the intimation dated 10.11.2013 issued u/s 200A of the Act while processing the TDS returns/statement, the enabling clause (c) having been inserted in the section w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Before 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E. As such, as per the assessee, in respect of TDS statement filed fora period prior to 01.06.2015, no late fee could be levied in the intimation issued u/s 200A of the Act. 3. Heard. The ld. CIT(A), while deciding the matter against the assessee, has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. UOI', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj), wherein, it has been held that section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing the mechanism for processing a statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustments. The ld. CIT(A) has held that this decision was I.T.A No. 442/Agra/2017 & S.A. No. 01/Agra/2018 Rajendra Agri Products P. ltd. ITANo.120/Ind/2022 Page 4 of 6 delivered after considering numerous ITAT/High Court decisions and so, this decision in 'Rajesh Kaurani' (supra) holds the field. 4. We do not find the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) to be correct in law. As against 'Rajesh Kaurani' (supra), 'ShriFatehrajSinghvi and Others vs.UOI', 73 Taxmann.com 252 (Ker), as also admitted by the ld. CIT(A) himself, decides the issue in favour of the assessee. The only objection of the ld. CIT(A) is that this decision and others to the same effect have been taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court while passing 'Rajesh Kaurani' (supra). However, while observing so, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to take into consideration the settled law that where there is a cleavage of opinion between different High Courts on an issue, the one in favour of the assessee needs to be followed. It has so been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.', 88 ITR 192 (SC). It is also not a case where the decision against the assessee has been rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court qua the assessee. 5. In 'ShriFatehrajSinghvi and Others' (supra) it has been held, inter alia, as follows: "22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, I.T.A No. 442/Agra/2017 & S.A. No. 01/Agra/2018 unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Under the circumstances, we find that substitution made by clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under Section 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest." 6. In view of the above, respectfully following 'ShriFatehrajSinghvi and Others' (supra), 'Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (TDS)', order dated 09.06.2015 passed in ITA No.90/ASR/2015, for A.Y.2013-14, by the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal, and 'Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS) Ghaziabad', order dated 15.09.2016, in ITA No.378/ASR/2015, for A.Y. 2012-13, I.T.A No. 442/Agra/2017 & S.A. No. 01/Agra/2018 the grievance of the assessee is accepted as justified. The order under appeal is reversed. The levy of the fee is cancelled.” 11. We, therefore respectfully following above decisions are of the opinion that in the given set of facts of the instant appeals wherein fee u/s 234E of the Act was levied in the statements processed u/s 200A of the Act before 01.06.2015 i.e. Rajendra Agri Products P. ltd. ITANo.120/Ind/2022 Page 5 of 6 before the amendment brought into effect from 01.06.2015 in section 200A of the Act thereby enabling the revenue authorities to raise demand in respect of levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of late fees u/s 234E of the Act by the assessing officer. Accordingly findings of Ld. CIT(A) in all these 10 appeals are reversed as we have recently taken a considered view against the revenue on earlier orders of Ld. CIT(A) wherein the identical orders by respective CIT(A) were passed and accordingly the revenue is directed to delete the levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act in all these 10 cases. Thus, common issue raised in these bunch of appeals is decided in favour of the assessee(s). 12. In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed.” This decision was again followed recently by the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Indore in M/s Divisional Forest Officer, Indore Vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, Gaziabad, ITA No. 42 to 46/Ind/2020 order dated 29.09.2022. 7. Respectfully following the view taken in above decisions, we have no hesitation in concluding that the late-fee levied u/s 234E levied by Ld. AO to the extent of Rs. Rs. 2,64,829/- relating to the period prior to 01.06.2015 in the intimations made u/s 200A is illegal and deserves to be deleted. We, therefore, direct the Ld. AO to rectify the intimations and delete the late-fee charged therein. Thus, the assessee succeeds in this appeal. 8. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed. 1. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANTMEMBER Indore दनांक /Dated : 20.12.2022 Patel/Sr. PS Orde r pronounced on 20/12/2022 by pla ci ng the r e sult o n t he Noti ce Boa rd a s p e r Rule 34 (4) of t he I ncome Ta x (Appe lla te Tr ib una l) Rule , 1 963. Rajendra Agri Products P. ltd. ITANo.120/Ind/2022 Page 6 of 6 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent 3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore 1. Date of taking dictation 12.12.22 2. Date of typing & draft order placed before the Dictating Member 12.12.22 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 12.12.22 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 7. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 8. Date of dispatch of the Order