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

ITA 2435/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9002 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 154; 234E; 200A

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठअहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ ‘बी’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद।अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (through web-based video conferencing platform) ] ] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2433, 2434 & 2435/Ahd/2018 Assessment Years : 2014-15 M/s. Orion Steel Corporation, 58, Ajanta Station Road, Anand PAN : AAAFO 3831 D Vs ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad अपीलाथ牸 अपीलाथ牸अपीलाथ牸 अपीलाथ牸/ (Appellant) 灹त् 灹त् 灹त् 灹त् यथ牸 यथ牸यथ牸 यथ牸/ (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr DR सुनवाई क琉 तारीख/D a t e o f He a r i n g : 0 9 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 1 घोषणा क琉 तारीख /Da te of P r on o u n c e m e n t: 1 0 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 1 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT : The present three appeals are directed at the instance of the assessee against separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, Vadodara dated 16.10.2018 passed for Assessment Year 2014- 15. 2. The reason for the three appeals versus one assessment year is that the assessee failed to file its TDS returns well within the time which were to be filed quarterly; hence a fine under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act was imposed for late filing of those returns in three quarters for Assessment Year 2014-15. Therefore, ITA No.2433/Ahd/2018 pertains to Quarter 2, ITA No.2434/Ahd/2018 pertains to Quarter 3 and ITA No.2435/Ahd/2018 pertains to Quarter 4. The levy of demand under Section 234E has duly been noticed by the learned CIT(A) in each quarter on page no.2 of the ITA Nos. 2433, 2434 & 2435/Ahd/2018 M/s. Orion Steel Corporation Vs. ACIT AY : 2014-15 2 impugned order while taking note of assessee’s application under Section 154 of the Act. 3. In response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee. With the assistance of learned Departmental Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that while processing the return of the assessee a penalty under Section 234E of the Act was levied. The contention of the assessee was that while making adjustment there was no power to the Revenue to raise a demand under Section 234E of the Act prior to 01.06.2015. This argument of the assessee was considered by the learned CIT(A), but the learned CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani Vs. Union of India, reported in (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Guj.). According to the learned CIT(A), the appeal of the assessee for Q1 was decided vide order dated 13.06.2018 by recording the following findings:- “3. After considering the above reply in appeal of Q1, the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed vide order dated 13.06.18, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:- 4.1 Ground no. 1 is regarding charging of late filing fee u/s. 234E at Rs.48,600/-. In the grounds of appeal, it has been submitted that prior to 01.06.2015, late filing fee 234E cannot be charged while processing the TDS return u/s. 200A as there was no provision for charging of late filing fee. This argument of the assessee is not acceptable in view of the decision jurisdictional Honorable High Court in the case of Rajesh KouranI v/s Union of India(2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Guj), Heard Notes of which are reproduced as under: "Section 234E, read with section 200A, of the Income tax Act 1961 Deduction of tax at source - Fees for default In furnishing statements (scope of provision)- Whether section 200A is a machinery provision providing mechanism for processing a statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustments, which are, arithmetical or prima ITA Nos. 2433, 2434 & 2435/Ahd/2018 M/s. Orion Steel Corporation Vs. ACIT AY : 2014-15 3 facie in nature and does not create any charge in any manner - Held, yes -Whether with effect from 1.6.2015, this provision specifically provides for computing fee payable under section 234E - held, yes - Whether however, section 234E is a charging provisions creating a charge for levying fee for certain defaults in filing statements and fee prescribed under section 234 E could be levied even without a regulatory provision being found in section 200A for computation of fee- Held, yes (para 20) [in favour of revenue]". 4.1.1 In view of the above decisions of the Hon. High Court which is binding on me/ I hold that the late filing fee under 234 E is chargeable while processing TDS returns under section 200A even prior to 01.06.2015. Accordingly the action of charging late filing fee u/s 234E is confirmed.” 4. The assessee thereafter filed applications under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act pointing out the apparent error. These applications have been disposed of by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order passed separately for different quarters on 16.10.2018. These orders passed on the applications of the assessee under Section 154 of the Act are being impugned before us. 5. In the present appeals, the power of rectification under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act can be exercised only when the mistake, which is sought to be rectified, is an obvious and patent mistake, which is apparent from the record and not a mistake, which is required to be established by arguments and long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which there may conceivably be two opinions. We find that there is no apparent mistake in the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 13.06.2018 whose relevant findings have been extracted by us supra. The orders of the learned CIT(A) for all these quarters are based upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court which is subsequent to the order of the ITAT cited by the assessee in its application for rectification. Therefore, it cannot be pleaded that some inadvertent apparent error has crept in the order of the learned First Appellate ITA Nos. 2433, 2434 & 2435/Ahd/2018 M/s. Orion Steel Corporation Vs. ACIT AY : 2014-15 4 Authority. The learned CIT(A) has rightly considered the applications of the assessee for each quarter and has rightly rejected them. We, therefore, do not find any error in the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A). Hence, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 10 th November 2021 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad, Dated 10/11/2021 *Bt आदेश क琉 灹ितिलिप अ灡ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ牸 / The Appellant 2. 灹瀄यथ牸 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु猴 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु猴)अपील (/ The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय 灹ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड榁 फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation- ...09.11.2021...... 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ...09.11.2021............ Other member ........10.11.2021............. 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S. - .................. 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement ..... 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk................... 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.................................. 7. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order..................... 8. Date of Despatch of the Order..................