T.Kolandaivelu & Company, Salem V. ITO TDS Ward, Salem

ITA 2874/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6168 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T DINESH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 271E; 234E; 201

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D BE NCH, CHENNAI, CAMP AT COIMBATORE BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER /. I.T.A.NOS.2874/CHNY/2017 AND 1812/CHNY/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2013-14 AND 2014-15) T.KOLLANDAIVELU & COMPANY, 18, KAS GARDEN, NARASOTHIPATTY, ALAGAPURAM SALEM 636 004. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, SALEM PAN: AACFT 4727F] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. T. DINESH, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 03.02.2020 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.02.2020 O R D E R BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SALEM DATED 29.09.2017 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 201 3-14 & 2014-15. 2 I.T.A. NO. 2874/17 & 1812/18 THEREFORE, I HEARD BOTH THE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DI SPOSING OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 166 DAYS IN FILING THE A PPEAL IN ITA NO.1812/CHNY/2018 BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. HAVING HEARD TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DR, THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT T HERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING TH E APPEAL BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREFORE, THE DELAY OF 166 DAYS IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 3. SHRI. T. DINESH, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE FEES LEVIED U/S. 234E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF G. INDHIRANI IN ITA NOS.1019, 1020 & 1021/MDS/2015, DATED 10.07.2015 . HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PASSING SEPARATE ORDER FOR LEVY OF FEES. MOREOVER, SECTION 271E OF THE ACT IS ONLY A CHARGING SECTION AND THERE IS NO MACHINERY PROVISION. THEREFORE, THE AO CANNOT PAS S SEPARATE ORDER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT INTIMATION ISSUED 3 I.T.A. NO. 2874/17 & 1812/18 U/S.200A OF THE ACT WAS ALREADY SET ASIDE BY THE CI T(A). THEREFORE, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR LEVY OF FEES. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN SUBMITTED THAT FEE LEVIED UNDER SECTIO N 271E OF THE ACT IS A STATUTORY FEE FOR DELAY IN FILING STATEMENT REQUIR ED U/S.200A OF THE ACT. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION, THE FEE WAS LEVIED WHILE PROCESSING THE STATEMENT U/S.200A OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) BY FOLL OWING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF G. INDHIRANI (SUPRA) DELETED THE FEES ALONE, HOWEVER, INTIMATION STANDS AS IT IS. THEREFORE CONT ENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT. 5. HAVING HEARD THE LD. COUNSEL AND THE LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL EXAMINED THE ISSUE ELABORATELY IN THE CASE OF G.INDHIRANI (SUPRA). THE CIT(A) REPRO DUCED THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT WHILE PROCESSING THE STATEMENT U/S.200A OF THE ACT, THE AO CANNOT LEVY A NY FEES U/S.234E OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, HE MAY PASS A SEPARATE ORDER U/S .234E OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF THIS TRIBUNAL, THE CIT(A) D ELETED FEE LEVIED U/S.234E OF THE ACT ALONE. HOWEVER, INTIMATION ISS UED BY THE AO AFTER PROCESSING STATEMENT OTHER THAN FEE STANDS AS IT I S. NOW, THE AO HAD 4 I.T.A. NO. 2874/17 & 1812/18 LEVIED FEES U/S.234E OF THE ACT BY SEPARATE ORDER. LEVY OF FEE U/S.234E OF THE ACT IS A STATUTORY MANDATE. IT IS NOT NECESSAR Y FOR ANY APPELLATE AUTHORITY INCLUDING THE CIT(A) TO GIVE LIBERTY TO T HE AO FOR LEVY OF SUCH FEES. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY MERI T IN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IN ITA NOS.2874/CHNY/2017 AND 1812/CHNY/2018 FOR ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2013- 2014 AND 2014-2015 STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3 RD FEBRUARY, 2020 AT CAMP AT COIMBATORE. SD/- (... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ' JUDICIAL MEMBER COIMBATORE, /DATED, THE 3 RD FEBRUARY 2020. KV #$ %&'& / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ()* / CIT(A) 5. &+, - / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. ( / CIT 6. ,./ / GF