HUZEFA MUSHTAQ QAISER, MUMBAI V. DCIT CENTRALLISED PROCESSING CELL (TDS) GHAZIABAD/ MUMBAI , MUMBAI

ITA 1581/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7098 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS; Set aside
• Section: 234E; 200A; 73

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1581, 1584, 1585 & 1586/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) & ITA No. 1582 & 1583/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14) Hazefa Mushtaq Quiser Flat No. C-208, Panchtantra-II, CHSL, Panchmarg, Off Yari Road, Versova, Andheri, West, Mumbai – 400061. Vs. DCIT, Centralised Processing Cell (TDS) Gaziabad/Mumbai. ./ज आइआर ./PAN/GIR No. : AABPQ5178J Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by: Shri Himanshu Gandhi.AR Revenue by : Shri TejinderPal Singh Anand.DR Date of Hearing 02.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 04.03.2022 आद श / O R D E R PER BENCH: These six appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ITA No. 1581to 1586/Mum/2021 Huzefa Mustaq Qaiser, Mumbai. - 2 - National Faceless Assessment, Delhi Passed u/s 200A and 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the issues involved in these appeals are similar, identical. Hence are clubbed, heard and consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the assessee appeal in ITA No. 1581/Mum/2021 for the A.Y 2014- 15 as a lead case and the facts narrated. The grounds of appeal are raised challenging the order of CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delaying in filing the quarterly TDS statements. 2. The brief facts the case that, the assessee has filed the TDS statements for the F.Y 2012-13 for Q2 & Q4 in form No 26Q. Whereas for F.Y 2013-14, the assessee has filed the Form No.26Q for Q1, Q3 and Q4 and Form No. 24Q for the F.Y 2013-14 Q4, all the TDS statements were filed with a delay. The assessee has received the intimation for Q4 -F.Y.2013-14 u/s 200A / 206B of the Act dated 18.07.2014 with a late fee u/s 234E of the Act of Rs. 12,000/-.Similarly for other TDS statements filed, the A.O has levied late fees u/s234E of the act for the period prior to 1-6-2015 as under: SN FY Qtr Form Late Fee u/s234E Date of filling 1 2012-13 Q4 26Q 42200 12.12.2013 2 2012-13 Q2 26Q 13680 12.12.2013 3 2013-14 Q4 24Q 10000 04.07.2014 4 2013-14 Q1 26Q 12401 14.07.2014 5 2013-14 Q3 26Q 36000 14.07.2014 ITA No. 1581to 1586/Mum/2021 Huzefa Mustaq Qaiser, Mumbai. - 3 - 6 2013-14 Q4 26Q 12000 14.07.2014 Total 126281 2.1 Aggrieved by the intimation u/s 200A of the Act, the assessee has filed separate appeals before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of late fees and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act, further the late fee can be charged only after 01.06.2015 and not for period prior to the said date. The present financial year in these appeals pertaining to Q2, Q4 of F.Y 2012-13 and in respect of F.Y.2013-14 Q1, Q3, Q4 and all the orders/ intimations are passed dated 18.07.2014 and the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals on 28.07.2021.The contentions of the Ld. AR are that no late fees is to be charged for the above financial years in these six appeals, which are prior to 01.06.2015 and substantiated with synopsis, judicial decisions and paper book and prayed for allowing the assessees appeal. Contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the CIT(A). 4. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue as ITA No. 1581to 1586/Mum/2021 Huzefa Mustaq Qaiser, Mumbai. - 4 - envisaged by the Ld. AR that the provisions of levy of late fees u/s 234E of the Act is applicable w.e.f 01.06.2015, where as the present financial year in these appeals are 2012-13 and 2013-14 which does not fall in the purview of applicability and the assessee has relied on the following judicial decisions. 1. Olaria Little Flower Kuries P Ltd Vs. Union of India, [2022] 134 taxmann.com 111. 2. Ellora Property Services Pvt Ltd., Vs. TDS CPC, ITA No. 1742-1760/Mum/2020. 3. Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, DOBI BK Vs. DCIT, CPC, [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78. 4. Permanent Magnets Ltd. Vs. DCIT – CPC (TDS), ITA No. 6436 to 6442/Mum/2018. 5. Additional DIGP Vs. DCIT, [2020] 120 taxmann.com 284, Delhi 5. We find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhavi Vs Union of India, [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 has observed and held as under: “The intimation given in purported exercise of power u/s 200A are in respect of fees u/s 234E for the period prior to 01.06.2015. As such, it is on account of the intimation given making demand of the fees in purported exercise of power u/s 200A, the same has necessitated the appellant original ITA No. 1581to 1586/Mum/2021 Huzefa Mustaq Qaiser, Mumbai. - 5 - petitioner to challenge the validity of section 234E of the Act. In view of the reasons recorded by us herein above, when the amendment made under section 200A of the Act which has come into effect on 01.06.2015 is held to be having prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for the fee u/s 234E could be made for the TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 01.06.2015. Hence the demand notices u/s 200A by the respondent authority for intimation for payment of fee u/s 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to the extent ” 6. We find as per the decisions of Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Tribunal, the provision of chargeability of late fees is w.e.f 01.06.2015. Therefore the provisions of Sec. 234E of the Act charging late fee is not applicable to the F.Y 2012-13 and 2013-14 where the assessee has filed the Form No. 24Q and 26Q. We considering the facts, circumstances, provisions of law and judicial decisions of Honble High court and Honble Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and delete the levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee. ITA Nos. 1582 to 1586/Mum/2021, 7. As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to ITA No. 1581/Mum/2019,the decision rendered in above paragraphs would apply mutatis ITA No. 1581to 1586/Mum/2021 Huzefa Mustaq Qaiser, Mumbai. - 6 - mutandis for this case also. Accordingly, grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. 8. In the result, the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04.03.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (GAGAN GOYAL) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 04.03.2022 KRK, PS /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. / The Appellant 2. / The Respondent. 3. आ र आ / The CIT(A) 4. आ र आ ( ) / Concerned CIT 5. "#$ % & &' , आ र ) र*, हमद द / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. % -. / 0 / Guard file. ान ु सार/ BY ORDER, " & //True Copy// 1. ( Asst. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai