DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER - TDS-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 667/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9768 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK KUMAR LD
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 234E; 200A; 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 657 TO 660/ASR/20 19 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2013-14 & 2014-15 PUNJAB ICT EDUCATION SOCIETY, DESH BHAGTAN, GOVT. SR. SEC. SCHOOL, DHOOT KALAN, HOSHIARPUR-144 210. VS. DY. CIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD. [PAN:JLDP0 4153C] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS. 661 TO 663/ASR/ 2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SH. RAKESH DHIR PROP. AKUL SILVER CENTER, KOTWALI BAZAR, HOSHIARPUR-146001 VS. DY. CIT, CPC- TDS, GHAZIABAD [PAN:JLDR0 4111C] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. ALOK KUMA R (LD. CIT- DR) ITA NOS.664 TO 668/ASR/20 19 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2014-15 & 2015-16 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, FOREST DIVISION, HOSHIARPUR. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, JALANDHAR. [PAN:JLDD0 0430D] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RESPONDENT BY: SMT. RAMAN DAMATHIA ( LD. DR) DATE OF HEARING: 17.12.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.12.2019 ITA NOS. 657 TO 668/ASR/ 2019 (AYS 201 3-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) 2 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST SE PARATE ORDERS DATED 14.08.2019 & 21.08.2019 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-1, JALANDHAR U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN BELOW. 2. AS ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION INVOLVED SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL ISSUE THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY , ITA NO.657/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2013-14) AND ITS FACTS, SHALL BE T AKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS A LEAD CASE AND RESULT OF THE SAME SHALL A PPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO ALL APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION. SL. NO. APPEAL NUMBER & ASST. YEAR DATE OF CIT(A) ORDER OFFICE OF CIT(A) 1. ITA NO.657/ASR/2019- (A.Y.2013-14) 21.08.2019 CIT(A)-1, JAL. 2. ITA NO.658/ASR/2019 -DO- -DO- -DO- 3. ITA NO.659/ASR/2019 -DO- -DO- -DO- 4. ITA NO.660/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2014-15) -DO- -DO- 5. ITA NO.661/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2013-14) -DO- -DO- 6. ITA NO.662/ASR/2019 -DO- -DO- -DO- 7. ITA NO.663/ASR/2019 -DO- -DO- -DO- 8. ITA NO.664/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2014-15) 14.08.2019 -DO- 9. ITA NO.665/ASR/2019 -DO- 21.08.2019 -DO- 10. ITA NO.666/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2015-16) 14.08.2019 -DO- 11. ITA NO.667/ASR/2019 -DO- 21.08.2019 - DO- 12. ITA NO.668/ASR/2019 -DO- 21.08.2019 - DO- ITA NOS. 657 TO 668/ASR/ 2019 (AYS 201 3-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) 3 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE INSTANT APP EAL THE ASSESSEE THOUGHT DEDUCTED THE TDS ON SALARY PAYMENTS AND DEPOSITED WELL IN TIME, HOWEVER FILED ITS TDS QUARTER LY STATEMENT IN FORM NO. 24Q FOR QUARTER 2 OF F.Y. 2012-13 ON 09.11 .2013 WHICH WAS DUE TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 15.10.2012. CONSEQUENTL Y THE DELAY OF 390 DAYS IN FILING OF TDS STATEMENTS HAS BEEN OCCURRED. T HEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER (TDS-CPC) HAD IMPOSED A LATE FEE U/S 23 4E FOR 390 DAYS OF RS.15,000/- FOR DELAY IN FILING OF QUARTERLY TDS STATEMENT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE INTIMATION U/S 200A WHEREIN FEE U/S 234E HAS BEEN LEVIED, THE ASSESSEE FILED FIRST APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A) WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.08.2019 DISMISSED THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, WHILE RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE G UJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KOURANI VS. UOI [2017] 83 T AXMANN.COM. 137 (GUJ). 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE INSTANT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 6. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE RELATES TO THE IMPOSITION OF LATE FEE FOR DELAY IN FILLING OF TDS STATEMENT(S) PRIOR TO AMENDMENT BY WAY OF FINANCE ACT, 2015 WHICH CAME INTO EFFECT FROM 1 ST JUNE 2015. THE QUESTION ARISE AS TO WHETHER THE LATE CAN BE IMPOSED FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1 ST JUNE 2015 WHEN THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE VIDE FINANCE ACT 2015 AND AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS ENABL ING PROVISIONS FOR LEVY OF LATE FEE PRIOR TO 1 ST JUNE 2015. ITA NOS. 657 TO 668/ASR/ 2019 (AYS 201 3-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) 4 7. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S M.G.N. KHALSA HIGH SCHOOL, JALANDHAR VS. ACIT, CPV CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD I N ITA NOS.16,17 & 18/ASR/2019 DECIDED ON 25.07.2019 ANALYZED THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE SAID JUDGMENT OF THE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN RAJESH KOURANI (SUPRA) AND OTHER JUDGMENTS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AND HELD, THE PROVISIONS OF CHARGING FEE UNDER SECTION 234E FOR DEFAUL T IN FURNISHING TDS RETURN CAME IN OPERATION ONLY AFTER 1 ST JUNE, 2015 WHEN THE ENABLING PROVISIONS IN THE ACT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED, BU T PRIOR TO THAT IF THERE WAS ANY DELAY IN FURNISHING OF TDS RETURNS AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN PROCESSED BEFORE 1 ST JUNE, 2015 THEN NO LATE FEE COULD BE LEVIED. 8. EVEN ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF SIBIA HEALTHC ARE (P) LTD. REPORTED AS 171 TTJ 145 (ASR) CLEARLY HELD TH AT INTIMATION ISSUED U/S 200A OF THE ACT FOR DEMAND OF FEES U/S 234E W AS NOT VALID IN LAW, AS THE SAME PERTAINS TO THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1 ST JUNE, 2015. 9. NO DOUBT THERE ARE JUDGMENTS SPECIFICALLY AS REFEREED ABOVE TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION, ON BOTH SIDES AS RELIED UPO N BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND BY THE A SSEEEE BEFORE US. HOWEVER, AS PER DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS 88 ITR 192, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COURT LAID DOWN THE PROPOSITION TO THE EFFECTS 'WHENEVER THERE ARE TWO REASONABLE CONSTRUCTIONS OF A TAXING PROVISION ARE POSSIBLE TH AT CONSTRUCTION WHICH FAVOURS THE ASSESSEE MUST BE ADOPTED' MEANING THEREBY WHEN TWO DIFFERENT VIEWS OF COURT ARE AVAILABLE ON AN ISSUE THEN THE VIEW WHICH FAVORS THE ASSESSEE OR THE JUDGMENT WHICH FAVOURS THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. HENCE WE DO NOT HAVE HESITATION TO FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF ITA NOS. 657 TO 668/ASR/ 2019 (AYS 201 3-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) 5 FATHERAJ SINGHVI & ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA ((2016) 28 9 CTR (KAR) 602 WHEREIN WHILE DEALING WITH THE SAME ISSUE ANALYZED THE AMENDMENT DATED 1 ST JUNE, 2015 AND CONSTRUED THAT SUBSTITUTION MADE BY CLAUSE (C) TO (F) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SEC. 200A CAN BE READ AS HAVING PROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND NOT HAVING RETROACTIVE CHARACTER OR EFFE CT. RESULTANTLY, THE DEMAND U/S 200A FOR COMPUTATION AND INTIMATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E COULD NOT BE MADE IN PURPORTED E XERCISE OF POWER UNDER SECTION 200A BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD OF THE RESPECTIVE ASST. YEAR PRIOR TO 1 ST JUNE, 2015. 10. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE IDENTICA L TO THE FACTS OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FATHERAJ SINGHVI & ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA (SUP RA), AND BY THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH IN M/S. M.G.N. KHALSA HIGH SCHOOL, JALANDHAR (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF SIBIA HEALTHCARE (P) LTD. RE PORTED AS 171 TTJ 145 (ASR), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION TH AT LATE FEE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE TDS STATEMENTS, CANNOT BE LEV IED FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1 ST JUNE, 2015, HENCE WE ARE INCLINED TO DELETE THE LATE FEE IMPOSED BY THE AO AND AFFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). CO NSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ST ANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/1 2/2019. SD/- SD/- (O.P.MEENA) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17/12/2019. /PK/ PS. ITA NOS. 657 TO 668/ASR/ 2019 (AYS 201 3-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) 6 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.THE APPELLANTS 2.THE RESPONDENTS 3.THE CIT,S 4.THEN CIT,S(APPEALS) 5.SR. DR, I.T.A.T. AMRITSAR 6.GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER