SHREENIVAS FIREWORKS INDUSTRIES, SIVAKASI V. ITO TDS WARD, MADURAI

ITA 1786/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1426 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PAVANA SUNDARI
• Keywords: TDS; Set aside
• Section: 234E; 200A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH: CHENNAI . . . , ! ' # , $ #% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1786/CHNY/2018 & '& /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S. SHREENIVAS FIREWORKS PVT. LTD., 212, AMMANKOVILPATTI MIDDLE STREET, SIVAKASI. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, MADURAI. [PAN: AADFS 5579D] ./ ITA NO.1787/CHNY/2018 & '& /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S. ARUMUGAM FIREWORKS PVT. LTD., 212, AMMANKOVILPATTI MIDDLE STREET, SIVAKASI. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, MADURAI. [PAN: AADCS 4977L] ( () /APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) () , - / APPELLANT BY : NONE *+() , - /RESPONDENT BY : MS. PAVANA SUNDARI, JCIT . , /$ /DATE OF HEARING : 23.04.2019 01' , /$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : .04.2019 / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE D IRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, MADURAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS CIT(A) ) DATED 09.04.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. ITA NOS.1786 & 1787/CHNY/2018 (AY: 2013-14) :- 2 -: 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. DURING THE F INANCIAL YEAR 2012- 13 THE APPELLANT HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AND PAI D TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. THE APPLICABLE QUARTERLY STATEMENT WAS FILED BELATEDLY ON 20.03.2014 AND IT WAS PROCESSED ON 27.03.2014 AND L EVIED LATE FEE OF RS. 9,000/- U/S. 234E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT). 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF LATE FEES U/S. 234E OF THE ACT. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVE RED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI G.RADHAKRISHNAN V. DCIT IN ITA NO.526/CHNY/201 8 DATED 30.07.2018, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 3. NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, IT HAS FILED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION, WHEREIN, IT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE E-TDS STATEMENT SHOULD BE PROCESSED U/S. 200A(1)(C) WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.2015 ONLY. AC CORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A(1), NO INTIMATION CAN BE SENT U/S. 200A, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FI NANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED. IN THIS CASE, THE ASS ESSEE FILED THE E- TDS ON 29.06.2013, WHICH WAS PROCESSED ON 16.01.201 4. THE REVISED ORDER, IF ANY, CAN BE PASSED ON OR BEFORE 3 1.03.2015 I.E., AFTER ONE YEAR FROM 31.03.2014. IT HAS FURTHER PLEA DED THAT THE ITAT, A BENCH, CHENNAI IN ITS ORDERS IN ITA NOS. 1019, 10 20 & 1021/MDS/2015 DATED 10.07.2015 IN THE CASE OF SMT. G. INDHIRANI VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD HAS SET ASIDE THE INTIMATION U/S. 200A FO R THE REASON THAT PRIOR TO 01.06.2015, THERE WAS NO ENABLING PROVISIO N IN SECTION 200A OF THE ACT FOR LEVY OF FEES U/S. 234E WHILE PROCESS ING THE STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. THE ITAT HAS ALSO HELD T HAT IT IS OPEN TO ITA NOS.1786 & 1787/CHNY/2018 (AY: 2013-14) :- 3 -: THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS A SEPARATE ORDER U/S. 234E OF THE ACT LEVYING FEE, PROVIDED THE LIMITATION FOR SUCH A LEV Y DID NOT EXPIRE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE OFFICER DATED 27.12.2016 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. PER CONTR A, THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LD. AO AND THE LD. CIT( A). 4. WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. AS H ELD BY THIS ITAT, THE INTIMATION SENT TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 200A DATED 16.01.2014 RAISING THE DEMAND OF RS. 9,000/- U/S. 2 34E TOWARDS LEVY OF LATE FILING FEE IS INVALID AS THERE WAS NO ENABLING PROVISION IN SECTION 200A, VIZ., CLAUSE (1)(C) OF SECTION 234E, PRIOR TO 01.06.2015 FOR LEVY OF FEES U/S. 234E WHILE PROCESSING THE STA TEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. IT WAS OPEN FOR THE AO TO PASS SEPARATE ORDER U/S. 234E LEVYING THE FEE, PROVIDED THE LIMITATION FOR SUCH A LEVY DID NOT EXPIRE. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, THE AO HAS NOT P ASSED ANY ORDER U/S. 234E INDEPENDENTLY WITHIN 31.03.2015 AND HENCE , THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BE NCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL SUPRA, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESS EE. ITA NO.1787/CHNY/2018 : 6. SINCE, THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE IDENT ICAL TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.1786/CHNY/2018, FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED TH EREIN, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE LINES INDICATED IN APPEAL ITA NO.1786/CHNY/2018 SUPRA. HENCE, THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 26 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! ' # ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) $ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED: 26 TH APRIL, 2019. EDN, SR. P.S ITA NOS.1786 & 1787/CHNY/2018 (AY: 2013-14) :- 4 -: , */34 54'/ /COPY TO: 1. () /APPELLANT 2. *+() /RESPONDENT 3. . 6/ ( )/CIT(A) 4. . 6/ /CIT 5. 47 */ /DR 6. & 8 /GF