Tanjore Palace Devastanam, Thanjavur V. DCIT,CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 553/CHNY/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7154 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rule of consistency; TDS
• Section: 234E; 200A

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,‘डी’ यायपीठ,चे ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ी जी मंजूनाथा, लेखा सद के सम , ी अिनके श बनज , ाियक सद एवं BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A Nos.:549 & 550, 551 to 554 & 555 to 558/Chny/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 [Q3 & Q4], 2014-15 [Q1, Q2, Q3 & Q4] & 2015-16 (Q1, Q2, Q3 & Q4] Tanjore Palace Devasthanam, No.1221, West Main Street, Thanjavur – 613 009. PAN : AABTT 8336P Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell, [CPC], TDS Bangalore – Karnataka (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओरसे/Appellant by : Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate यथ क ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08.06.2022 घोषणा क तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश /O R D E R PER BENCH : This batch of ten appeals, I.T.A Nos.:549 & 550, 551 to 554 & 555 to 558/Chny/2021 filed by the Assessee are directed against separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi confirming the levy of late filing fee u/s.234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity “the Act”) for the ::2 :: ITA Nos.:549 & 550, 551 to 554 & 555 to 558/Chny/2021 Assessment Years 2013-14 [Q3 & Q4], 2014-15 [Q1, Q2, Q3 & Q4] & 2015-16 (Q1, Q2, Q3 & Q4] respectively generated by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Cell – TDS. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that in appeal Nos. I.T.A. No.549/Chny/2021, I.T.A. Nos.551 to 554/Chny/2021 and I.T.A. Nos. 556 & 557/Chny/2021 of the Assessee are time barred by 2 days due to circumstances beyond the control of the Assessee because of the outbreak of ‘Covid-19’ pandemic. The Hon’ble Bench took into cognizance the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the “Suo Moto WP 03/2020 dated 20.03.2020 while considering the condonation of delay. It is a fact that ‘Covid-19’ pandemic was prevalent and in term of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21/2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, we condone the delay of 2 days in all these appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case in all these appeals are that, the common issue under consideration is levy of fees u/s.234E of the Act. The fees is levied for default filing of TDS returns ::3 :: ITA Nos.:549 & 550, 551 to 554 & 555 to 558/Chny/2021 u/s.200A of the Act. During the processing of the TDS return, the fees was charged by the learned Assessing Officer u/s.234E of the Act. On the basis of the demand, the Assessee filed a rectification petition u/s.154 of the Act by considering the judicial directions of different courts on the basis of the provisions prior to 01.06.2015 related to Finance Bill 2015. The learned Assessing Officer rejected the rectification petition u/s.154 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) for considering the rectification application filed u/s.154 of the Act. However, the learned CIT(A) had passed the order while rejecting the Assessee’s plea / arguments. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT]. 4. The learned Counsel of the Assessee, Mr. S. Sridhar vehemently argued and submitted that the provisions of Section 234E of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act 2012 and insertion of Clause (c) to Section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 as well as the decision of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Hon’ble ITAT, Chennai Benches has accepted the provision. Mr. Sridhar, the learned Counsel of the Assessee ::4 :: ITA Nos.:549 & 550, 551 to 554 & 555 to 558/Chny/2021 referred to the judgement and made an analysis of the order of the Tribunal in the case M/s. M.F. Textiles Private Limited, Chennai Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad bearing I.T.A. No.578 & 579/Chny/2021, pronounced on 24.02.2022. The relevant paragraph of the said order is extracted as under: “In the present appeals, on perusal of the facts, we find that the Assessment Years involved are prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the late fee charged by the Assessing Officer under section 234E of the Act, while processing quarterly TDS return under section 200A of the Act is without any authority and invalid. Hence, by respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka), we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee while processing of TDS return under section 200A of the Act upto the Financial Year 2014-2015. Since, late fee charged in the present case pertaining to the Financial Year 2013-2014, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the ::5 :: ITA Nos.:549 & 550, 551 to 554 & 555 to 558/Chny/2021 late fee charged under section 234E of the Act in the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act for the processing of quarterly TDS return filed by the Assessee.” 5. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the harmonious cognizant of provision of Section 234E, memorandum to Finance Bill 2012, Section 200A(1)(c), memorandum to Finance Bill 2015 makes the following points unambiguously clear that Section 234E of the Act is constitutionally valid. 5.1. Late fee u/s.234E is levied for default period in filing the TDS statement / return even for the period prior to 01.06.2015. The Section 234E of the Act is a charging section. The fee are charged automatically and so there is no question of accepting the rectification u/s.154 of the Act. So, he relied on the order of the learned CIT(A). 5.2. Mr. Sridhar, the learned Counsel of the Assessee vehemently argued and mentioned that the mistake of law can be rectified. During the appeal proceedings, the ::6 :: ITA Nos.:549 & 550, 551 to 554 & 555 to 558/Chny/2021 opportunity of hearing was not granted and he requested for remanding back the issue for further adjudication by considering the provisions of the judicial statute. 6. In different years, the returns are filed and processed accordingly. The details of the chart are hereby inserted for further clarification of the issue. DETAILS OF PROCESSING OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE [TDS] RETURNS Sl. No. I.T.A. No. Financial Year Order Pass Date Interest Filing Fee u/s.234E Rs. [1] I.T.A. No.549/Chny/2021 2013-2014 20 th October, 2015 26,080-00 [2] I.T.A. No.550/Chny/2021 2013-2014 2 nd November, 2015 36,654-00 [3] I.T.A. No.551/Chny/2021 2014-2015 13 th July, 2018 45,702-00 [4] I.T.A. No.552/Chny/2021 2014-2015 13 th July, 2018 33,633-00 [5] I.T.A. No.553/Chny/2021 2014-2015 13 th July, 2018 37,175-00 [6] I.T.A. No.554/Chny/2021 2013-2014 13 th July, 2018 87,686-00 [7] I.T.A. No.555/Chny/2021 2015-2016 13 th July, 2018 35,164-00 [8] I.T.A. No.556/Chny/2021 2015-2016 13 th July, 2018 27,588-00 [9] I.T.A. No.557/Chny/2021 2015-2016 13 th July, 2018 62,921-00 [10] I.T.A. No.558/Chny/2021 2015-2016 13 th July, 2018 37,199-00 7. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on record. The issue of Section 234E ::7 :: ITA Nos.:549 & 550, 551 to 554 & 555 to 558/Chny/2021 of the Act was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in favour of the Assessee as the rule of consistency is applicable in this case. In the case of Radhasoami Satsang Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [1992] 60 Taxmann.com 248 / 193 ITR 321 (SC) it is held that the rule of consistency should not create anomaly. Respectful observation of the order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India reported in [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka) it is held that the provisions of Section 200A(1)(c)(d) & (f) of the Act have come into force only w.e.f.01.06.2015 and hence the authority concerned is not to compute and determine the fee u/s.234E in respect of the assessment year of the earlier periods and the return filed for the said respective assessment years, i.e. all the assessment years and the returns prior to 01.06.2015. So, the fees should not be levied prior to 01.06.2015. The Assessee had filed a rectification petition and without giving a reasonable opportunity, the appeal was rejected. The specific observation is required before redressal of the issue. The period of filing of the return and the period of ::8 :: ITA Nos.:549 & 550, 551 to 554 & 555 to 558/Chny/2021 deduction of tax, is the issue which was prior to 01.06.2015, for levying fee u/s.234E of the Act. Accordingly, the matter is setting aside before the learned CIT(A) for further adjudication, and directed to pass the order considering the observations of the Bench, as mentioned above. Nonetheless, the Assessee should get a reasonable opportunity for redressal of its grievances before the Authority. 8. In the result, all the appeal of the Assessee in I.T.A Nos.:549 & 550, 551 to 554 & 555 to 558/Chny/2021 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 15 th June,2022at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जीमंजूनाथा) (G. MANJUNATHA) लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (अिनके श बनज ) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ाियकसद एवं /JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई /Chennai, िदनांक/Dated, the 15 th June, 2022 IA, Sr. PS आदेशकी#ितिलिपअ&ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. #(थ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु+ (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयु+/CIT 5. िवभागीय#ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड0फाईल/GF