Kaizen Hitech Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. ITO Corporate Ward 4(3), CHENNAI

ITA 2310/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3995 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR; H YASHWANTH KUMAR
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! ' # , % #& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.2310, 2311, 2312, 2313, 2314, 2315 & 2316/CHNY/2018 ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14 TO 2015-16 M/S KAIZEN HITECH PVT. LTD., NO.88, PLOT NO.159, PERUNGUDI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PERUNGUDI, CHENNAI - 600 096. PAN : AACCK 5463 A V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 4(3), CHENNAI. (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI H. YASHWANTH KUMAR, CA FOR SH. T. BANUSEKAR, CA ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 09.01.2019 45* 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.02.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS)-17, CHENNAI, DATED 28.05.2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 TO 2015- 16, CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT '). 2 I.T.A. NO.2310 TO 2316/CHNY/18 2. SHRI H. YASHWANTH KUMAR, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. G. INDHIRANI V. DCIT IN I.T.A. NO.1019 TO 1021/MDS/2015 DATED 10.07 .2015 FOUND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A OF THE ACT WAS AMEND ED WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2015 ENABLING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LEVY F EE WHILE PROCESSING THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. ACCOR DING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, BEFORE 01.06.2015, THE ASSESSING OF FICER CANNOT LEVY FEE WHILE PROCESSING THE STATEMENT. THIS TRIBUNAL SPEC IFICALLY FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY PASS AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 2 34E OF THE ACT LEVYING FEE FOR DELAYED STATEMENT AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 234E(3) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE CIT(APPEALS) DISTINGUISHED THIS ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL BY PLACIN G RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN FATHERAJ SINGHVI V. UNION O F INDIA (2016) 73 TAXMANN.COM 252, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED T HAT THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN A SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE FOUND THAT FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT CANNOT BE LEVIED IN PURPORTED EXERCISE O F POWER UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 01.06.2015. SINCE ONE OF THE OPINIONS IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISTINGUISHING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 3 I.T.A. NO.2310 TO 2316/CHNY/18 3. WE HEARD SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. ADMITTEDLY, SECTION 200A OF T HE ACT WAS AMENDED WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2015 ENABLING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LEVY FEE WHILE PROCESSING THE STATEMENT FILED UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. G. IND HIRANI (SUPRA) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT LEVY FEE WHILE PROCESS ING UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT FOR DELAY IN FILING THE STATEMENT. THIS TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT PASS A SEPARATE ORDER UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. IN F ACT, THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW IN FATHERAJ SIN GHVI (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE JUDGMENT OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN ANOTHER DE CISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN DOLLARS & POUNDS IN I.T.A . NO.2015/CHNY/2018 DATED 30.11.2018, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT WHERE TH ERE WERE CONFLICTING JUDICIAL OPINIONS AMONG VARIOUS COURTS, THE JUDGMEN T OF APEX COURT IN CIT V. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. (88 ITR 192) IS APPL ICABLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LOWER A UTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO AUTHORITY TO LEVY ANY FEE WHILE PROCESSING THE STATEMENT FILED UNDER SECTION 200A O F THE ACT BEFORE 01.06.2015. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE FEE LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U NDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IS DELETED. 4 I.T.A. NO.2310 TO 2316/CHNY/18 4. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 6 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' # ) ( . . . ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 6 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. KRI. 0 .389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ;3 () /CIT(A)-17, CHENNAI 4. 2 ;3 /CIT(TDS), CHENNAI 5. 9< .3 /DR 6. =) > /GF.