M/s. Orion Steel Corporation, Anand V. The ACIT.,CPC-TDS, Ghaziyabad

ITA 2432/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2701 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 234E; 200A; 13

Judgement Text

, SMC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO. 2432/AHD/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15(26Q, Q1)) M/S. ORION STEEL CORPORATION 58, AJANTA STATION ROAD, ANAND, GUJARAT-388001 / VS. THE ACIT CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIYABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFO3831D ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR, SR. DR !' /DATE OF HEARING 07/10/2021 #$!' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/10/2021 %& /O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH - AM: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2014-15 ( 26Q, Q1), ARISE FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) 5, VADODARA DATED 13.06.2018, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 200A R.W.S. 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHO RT THE ACT WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-5, VAD ODARA [THE CIT(A)] ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSISTA NT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (THE AO) IN LEAVING LATE FILING FEE RS. 48,600/- OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT PRIOR TO 1 ST JUNE 2015 THERE WAS NO ENABLING PROVISION IN THE A CT FOR RAISING A DEMAND OF LEVYING FEES U/S. 234E AND ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E WAS INDEED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE ADJUSTME NTS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 200A. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) -5, VADODARA [THE CIT(A)] HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFORMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 220(2) OF ITA NO. 2432/AHD/2018(M/S. ORION STEEL CORPORATION VS. ACIT) A.Y. 2014-15(26Q, Q1) 2 THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHEN THE DEMAND ITSELF DOE S NOT SUBSISTS IN VIEW OF ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL. GROUND NO.1:- 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD F ILED ITS TDS STATEMENT IN FORM NO. 26Q FOR A.Y. 2014-15 (QUARTER-1) WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 200A ON 24.03.2014 CHARGING LATE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E AT RS. 48,600/-. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 200A R.W.S. 154 BY CPC GHAZIABAD, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)-5, VADOD ARA. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KOURANI VS. UNION OF INDIA (2017) 83 TAXMANN.COM 137 (GUJ.). 3. HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILA BLE ON RECORD, WITHOUT REITERATING THE FACTS AS STATED ABOVE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE LATE FEE OF RS. 48,600/- LEVIED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. SECTION 234E IS A CHARGING PROVISION CREATING A CHARGE FOR LEVYING FEES FOR CERTAIN DEFAULTS IN FILING STATEMENTS, AND FEES PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 234E C OULD BE LEVIED EVEN WITHOUT REGULATORY PROVISION BEING FOUND IN SECTION 200A FO R COMPUTATION OF FEES. SECTION 234E PRESCRIBES FOR CHARGING OF A FEE FOR EVERYDAY O F DEFAULT IN FILING STATEMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION 3 OF SECTION 200 OR IN PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206 OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT O F GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KOURANI VS. UNION OF INDIA (2017) 83 TAXMANN.COM 13 7 (GUJ.) HELD THAT SECTION 200A IS A MACHINERY PROVISION PROVIDING MECHANISM F OR PROCESSING A STATEMENT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND FOR MAKING ADJUSTMEN T, ON THE OTHER HAND, SECTION 234E IS A CHARGING PROVISION CREATING A CHARGE FOR L EVYING FEE FOR CERTAIN DEFAULT IN FILING THE STATEMENT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ALSO H ELD THAT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES A MACHINERY PROVISION CAN OVERRIDE OR OVERRULE A CHARGING PROVISION. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS RAJESH KOURANI VS UOI (SUPRA) WE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ITA NO. 2432/AHD/2018(M/S. ORION STEEL CORPORATION VS. ACIT) A.Y. 2014-15(26Q, Q1) 3 DECISION OF LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. GROUND NO.2:- 4. THIS GROUND RELATES TO CHARGING INTEREST UNDER SE CTION 220(2) OF THE ACT. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST CHARGING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 220(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CI T(A) HAS DISMISSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 220(2) IS A CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND SINCE NO RELIEF IS GRAN TED IN THE QUANTUM OF DEMAND, THIS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 220(2) WHICH IS OF CONSEQUENTIAL NATURE WE CONSIDER THAT DECISION OF LD . CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. SD/- SD/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 27/10/2021 TANMAY TRUE COPY / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / REVENUE 2. % / ASSESSEE 3. + ,! -! / CONCERNED CIT 4. -!- / CIT (A) 5. 123 ! ,, ' ,, 56%+% / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 38 9 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / %& , :/5 ' ,,56%+% < 1.DATE OF DICTATION ON 21.10.2021 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER 22.10.2021 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 22.10.2021 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .10.2021 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR . P.S./P.S 27.10.2021 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 27.10.2021 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27/10/2021