GENUS CONSORTIUM, Jaipur V. DCIT,

ITA 88/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9731 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: K L MULCHANDANI

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 88, 89 & 90/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13. M/S GENUS CONSORTIUM, B-9, GANPATI ENCLAVE, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. JPRG05549F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI K.L. MULCHANDANI (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 01.03.2017. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 /03/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-5, JAIPUR , DATED 10.11.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. COMMON GROUNDS ARE INVOLVE D IN ALL THESE APPEALS. THEREFORE, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE TAKEN UP FOR HEARI NG TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. THE GRO UND RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON EXCEPT CHANGE IN FIGURE, WHICH READS AS UNDER :- ITA NO. 88/JP/2017 : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING LATE FILING FEE OF RS. 17,000/- CHARGED BY LD. A.O. UNDER SECTION 234E O T HE IT ACT, 1961 IGNORING THE FACT THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD T HERE WAS NO SUCH 2 ITA NO. 88, 89 & 90/JP/2017 M/. GENUS CONSORTIUM, JAIPUR. PROVISION IN SECTION 200A O THE IT ACT, 1961 FOR CH ARGING SUCH LATE FILING FEE WHILE PROCESSING THE QUARTERLY STATEMENT FILED IN FORM NO. 26Q AN ALSO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE ACTS DISCUSSED IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION SUPPORTED BY CASE LAWS OF VARIOUS ITAT, BENCHES. THUS, CONFIRMING OF THE ACTION OF LD. AO OF CHARGIN G OF SUCH FEE WHILE SENDING INTIMATION U/S 200A IS LEGALLY AND FA CTUALLY INCORRECT AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED SUMMARILY. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING O F APPEAL. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN BRIEF. 2.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVES SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISS UE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT VIDE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA VS. UNION OF INDIA. 2.2. IN REJOINDER, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS JUDGMENT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 738/JP/2016. 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN PARA 15 OF THE JUDGM ENT AS UNDER: AS STATED EARLIER, DUE TO LATE SUBMISSION OF TDS S TATEMENTS MEANS THE DEPARTMENT IS BURDENED WITH EXTRA WORK WHICH IS OTH ERWISE NOT REQUIRED IF THE TDS STATEMENTS WERE FURNISHED WITHIN THE PRESCR IBED TIME. THIS FEE IS FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL BURDEN FORCED UPON TH E DEPARTMENT. A PERSON DEDUCTING THE TAX (THE DEDUCTOR), IS ALLOWED TO FIL E HIS TDS STATEMENT BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME PROVIDED HE PAYS THE FEE AS PRE SCRIBED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE LATE FILING O F THE TDS RETURN/STATEMENTS IS REGULARIZED UPON PAYMENT OF THE FEE AS SET OUT I N SECTION 234E. THIS IS 3 ITA NO. 88, 89 & 90/JP/2017 M/. GENUS CONSORTIUM, JAIPUR. NOTHING BUT A PRIVILEGE AND A SPECIAL SERVICE TO TH E DEDUCTOR ALLOWING HIM TO FILE THE TDS RETURN/STATEMENTS BEYOND THE TIME PRES CRIBED BY THE ACT AND/OR THE RULES. WE THEREFORE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE ARGUM ENT OF THE PETITIONERS THAT THE FEE THAT IS SOUGHT TO BE COLLECTED UNDER S ECTION 234E OF THE ACT IS REALLY NOTHING BUT A COLLECTION IN THE GUISE OF A T AX. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT INTO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 89 & 90/JP/2017 : 3. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 89 & 90/J P/2017. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS EXACTLY SIMILAR TO GRO UND RAISED IN ITA NO. 88/JP/2017 AND THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY REJECTING THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THESE APPEALS TOO, THEREFORE, TAKING A CON SISTENT VIEW, BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE ALSO DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 .0 3.2017. SD/- SD/- ( HKKXPUN ( DQY HKKJR ) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 09/03/2017. POOJA/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- M/S GENUS CONSORTIUM, JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE DCIT,GHAZIABAD. 4 ITA NO. 88, 89 & 90/JP/2017 M/. GENUS CONSORTIUM, JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 88,89 & 90/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR