C. Panneerselvam, Kundapura V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

ITA 547/BANG/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5560 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 250; 234E; 200A; 201; 43

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.547/Bang/2021 Assessment year : 2015-16 Shri C. Paneerselvam, Panner Jewellers, Gokul Towers, Main Road, Kundapura – 576 201. PAN: ACFPP 7587E Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell- TDS, Ghaziabad – 201 010. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 09.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.12.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 17.8.2021 for the AY 2015-16 on the following grounds:- “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] passed under Section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. ITA No.547/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 4 2. The appellant deities himself liable to be charged fees under section 234F of the Act amounting to Rs.28,200/ on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Section 200A does not permit processing of TDS statement for default in payment of late fees for the period 01/01/2012 to 01/06/2015 & the levy of fees processed U/s 2001 for the above period, is liable to be deleted full, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act amounting to Rs.28,200/ computed by the learned assessing officer on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without Prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that there was no enabling provision prior to 01/06/2015 to recover fee u/s. 234E and that the levy of 234E for the impugned year being prior to 01/06/2015 needs to be quashed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the hearing of the appeal the Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice.” 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed TDS Form for the quarter Q4 2014-15 on 3.10.2015 which is beyond the due date i.e. 15/05/2015. There was a delay of 141 days. The AO levied late fee u/s. 234E @ Rs.200 per day for 141 days aggregating to Rs.28,200. The assessee submitted that the AO has no power to charge the said fees while processing the TDS returns u/s. 200A of the Act prior to the substitution of clause (c) to Section 200A(1) vide Finance Act, 2015. The CIT(Appeals), NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before the Chennai Tribunal in the case of G. Indrani v. DCIT, 43 CCH 511 (Chennai) wherein it was held as follows:- ITA No.547/Bang/2021 Page 3 of 4 “The AO cannot make any adjustment other than the one prescribed above in Section 200A. By Finance Act, 2015, with effect from 01.06.2015, the Parliament amended Section 200A by substituting sub-section (1) of clauses (c) to (e). Therefore, it is obvious that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act for making adjustment in respect of the statement filed by the assessee with regard to tax deducted at source by levying fee under Section 234E. The Parliament for the first time enabled the AO to make adjustment by levying fee u/s 234E with effect from 01.06.2015. Thus, while processing statement under Section 200A, the AO cannot make any adjustment by levying fee u/s 234E prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, this Tribunal was of the considered opinion that the fee levied by the AO u/s 234E while processing the statement of tax deducted at source was beyond the scope of adjustment provided u/s 200A . Therefore, such adjustment cannot stand in the eye of law.” 4. In the present case also, filing of return is relating to last quarter of the FY 2014-15 i.e., Jan. to Mar. 2015. Being so, the above ratio laid down by the coordinate Bench is directly applicable to the facts of the case. Further, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. UOI, 142 DTR 281 (Karn) has taken the same view. In view of this, we are inclined to allow the appeal of the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 27 th day of December, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- ( BEENA PILLAI ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 27 th December, 2021. / Desai S Murthy / ITA No.547/Bang/2021 Page 4 of 4 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.