A R R Chariable Trust, Chennai V. ACIT, Centralized Precessing Cell-TDS, Chennai

ITA 241/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7397 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SASI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: R SU BRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Charitable institution

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1307/CHNY/2017 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 & ./ ITA NOS.238, 239, 240 & 241/CHNY/2018 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S A.R.R. CHARITABLE TRUST, NO.15, KRISHNASWAMY AVENUE, LUZ CHURCH ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI - 600 004. PAN : AAATA 0330 R V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL TDS, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD 1(3), CHENNAI. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. SUBRAMANIAN, CA -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A. SASIKUMAR, JCIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 04.07.2018 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.07.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX 2 I.T.A. NO.1307/CHNY/17 I.T.A. NOS.238 T O 241/CHNY/18 (APPEALS) -17, CHENNAI, DATED 28.02.2017 AND PERTAI N TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2015-16. 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 211 DAYS IN FILING THE APPE ALS IN I.T.A. NOS.238 TO 241/CHNY/2018 BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. D.R. W E FIND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE MENTIONED A PPEALS BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY A ND ADMIT THE APPEALS. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL T HESE APPEALS IS LEVY OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') WHEN THE STATEMENT WAS PROCESSED UNDER S ECTION 200A OF THE ACT. 4. SHRI R. SUBRAMANIAN, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THIS TRI BUNAL IN SMT. G. INDHIRANI V. DCIT (2015) 60 TAXMANN.COM 312, SUBMIT TED THAT BEFORE 01.06.2015, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO AUT HORITY TO LEVY FEE WHILE ISSUING INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE 3 I.T.A. NO.1307/CHNY/17 I.T.A. NOS.238 T O 241/CHNY/18 SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) CLAIMS THAT THE INT IMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 31.07.2015. THIS IS NOT CORRECT. REFERRING TO THE INTIMATIONS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, TH E LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE INTIMATIONS U NDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED BEFORE 01.06.2015, THEREFORE , THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE LEV Y OF FEE. 5. WE HEARD SHRI A. SASIKUMAR, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO ISSUE OF INTIMATION. THE CIT(APPEALS) CLAIMS THAT THE INTIM ATION WAS ISSUED ON 31.07.2015, THEREFORE, IT IS BEYOND 01.06.2015. WE HAVE VERIFIED THE INTIMATIONS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. T HE INTIMATIONS WERE ISSUED FOR ALL THE YEARS BEFORE 01.06.2015. T HEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THE INTI MATIONS WERE ISSUED ON 31.07.2015. WHEN THE INTIMATIONS WERE IS SUED BEFORE 01.06.2015, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION TO LEVY FEE U NDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT WAS MADE ONLY WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2015. THIS FACT WAS EX AMINED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. G. INDHIRANI (SUPRA). THIS TRIBUNAL, 4 I.T.A. NO.1307/CHNY/17 I.T.A. NOS.238 T O 241/CHNY/18 AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CAST, HAS OBSERVED AT PARA 7 OF ITS ORDER, AS FOLLOWS:- 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENT OTHER THAN THE ONE PRESCRIBED ABOVE IN SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. BY FINANCE ACT, 2015, WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2015, THE PARLIAMENT AMENDED SECTION 200A BY SUBSTITUTING SU B- SECTION (1) OF CLAUSES (C) TO (E). FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVENIENCE, WE ARE REPRODUCING THE AMENDMENT MADE IN SECTION 200A BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 AS UNDER:- IN SECTION 200A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, IN SUB-SECTION (1), FOR CLAUSES (C) TO (E), THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED WITH EFFECT FROM THE 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2015, NAMELY:- (C) THE FEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDA NCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E; (D) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DU E TO, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF TH E AMOUNT COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AND CLAUSE (C) AGA INST ANY AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 200 OR SECTION 201 OR SECTION 234E AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY WAY OF TAX OR INTEREST OR FEE; (E) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED A ND SENT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PA YABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UNDER CLAUS E (D); AND (F) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PU RSUANCE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (D) SHALL BE GRAN TED TO THE DEDUCTOR. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT PRIOR TO 01.06.2015, THERE WAS NO ENABLING PROVISION IN SECTION 200A OF THE ACT FOR M AKING ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 5 I.T.A. NO.1307/CHNY/17 I.T.A. NOS.238 T O 241/CHNY/18 ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY LE VYING FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE PARLIAMENT FOR THE FIRST TIME ENABLED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ADJUSTMENT BY LEVYING FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE AC T WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2015. THEREFORE, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES, WHIL E PROCESSING STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENT BY LEV YING FEE UNDER SECTION 234E PRIOR TO 01.06.2015. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED FEE UNDER S ECTION 234E OF THE ACT WHILE PROCESSING THE STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE FEE LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTI ON 234E OF THE ACT WHILE PROCESSING THE STATEMENT OF TAX DED UCTED AT SOURCE IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ADJUSTMENT PROVIDE D UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, SUCH ADJUSTMENT CANNOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT BEFORE 01.06.2015, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER CANNOT LEVY FEE WHILE ISSUING INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE FEE LEVIED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IS DELETED. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE STAND ALLOWED. 6 I.T.A. NO.1307/CHNY/17 I.T.A. NOS.238 T O 241/CHNY/18 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 24 TH JULY, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 24 TH JULY, 2018. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-17, CHENNAI-34 4. 1 92 /CIT (TDS), CHENNAI 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.