Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4715 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
22-03-2019
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2014-2015
Appeal Filed On
31-01-2019
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: CHENNAI . , ' , % & BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO S . 23 TO 26 / CHNY /20 19 (IN ITA NOS.195 TO 198/CHNY/2018) %' ' /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD-10(1), CHENNAI. VS. SHRI S.R.RAGHUVIR, C/O. S.VENKATRAM & CO., NO.218, TTK ROAD, ALWARPET, CHENNAI. [PAN: AAAPR 6061 J] ( ( /APPELLANT) ( )*( /RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : MR.B.SAGADEVAN, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : MR.G.SITARAMAN, CA , /DATE OF HEARING : 22.03.2019 , /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.03.2019 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE ARE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE REV ENUE IN ITA NOS.195-198/CHNY/2018 FOR THE AY 2014-15. 2. SHRI B.SAGADEVAN, JCIT REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI G.SITARAMAN, CA., REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE. MP NO.23-26/CHNY/2019 (IN ITA NO.195-198/CHNY/2018) :- 2 -: 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.DR THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS LIABLE TO BE RE-CALLED AND THE ISSUES TO BE RE-CONS IDERED. 4. THE REVENUE HAS SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS: VIDE ORDER IN ITA NOS.195, 196, 97 & 198/CHNY/2018 DA TED 09.07.2018, THE HONBLE ITAT, B BENCH, CHENNAI PASSED A COMMON ORDER FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 (F.YEAR 2014- 15) IN THE CASE OF SHRI S.R. RAGHUVIR (PAN: AAAPR 60 61 J) AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 13.11.2017. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS ARE MADE FOR THE KIND CONSIDERATION OF HONBLE ITAT. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE: 2.1. THE ASSESSEE-DEDUCTOR HAD FILED THE REGULAR QU ARTERLY STATEMENTS OF TDS FOR QUARTER I FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15 ON 01.03.2017. THE D UE DATE FOR FILING THE QUARTERLY RETURN WAS 15.07.014. HENCE, THE CPC(TD5), GHAZIABAD, ISSUED INTIMATION U /S.200A/206CB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE I.T. ACT) LEVYING LATE FILING FEE OF RS.21,460 U/S.234E OF THE L.T. ACT FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15. 2.2. ON ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE A PPEAL CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF LATE FILING FEE U/S.234E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY CLEARLY ESTABLISHING THAT THE INCOME TAX ACT DOES NOT PLACE ANY OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTICE BEFORE PREPARING OR GENERATING THE INTIMATION U/S.234E R.W. S. 200A. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO STRENGTHENED THE ORDER BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE H ONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KOURANI VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT SEC.200A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS A MACHINE RY PROVISION FOR PROCESSING THE E- TDS RETURNS AND IT CANNOT OVERRIDE THE MAIN CHARGIN G SECTION VIZ., 234E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WHICH COME TO BE EFFECTIVE FROM 01.07.20 12. 2.3. AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT BY EXPLAINING THAT DELAY WAS DUE TO THE FAULT OF THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WHO DID NOT COMPLY IN TIME, ACCEPTING THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, TH E TRIBUNAL, BY PRESENT ORDER, DELETED THE FEE LEVIED U/S.234E ON THE GROUNDS THAT THAT THE LEVY OF LATE FILING FEE IS A STATUTORY LEVY FOR BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OR NON-COMPLIANCE OF P ARTICULAR PROVISION OF THE ACT. ONCE, IT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION, THEN PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WILL COME INTO PLAY AND REASONABLE CAUSE WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE DEFAULT. THUS, THE HONBLE ITAT DELETED THE FEE LEVIED U/S.23 4E ON THE REASON THAT THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO B E FALSE. 3. ISSUES FOR KIND CONSIDERATION OF HONBLE ITAT, C HENNAI BENCH: 3.1 THE MOOT POINTS ARISING OUT OF THE ABOVE DECISI ON OF HONBLE ITAT ARE: - (A) WHETHER THE LATE FILING FEE LEVIED U/S.234E IS NO T IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION AS HELD BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN THIS CA SE? IN OTHER WORDS, IS IT A STATUTORY FEE AS HELD BY THE HONBLE ITAT OR A COMP ENSATORY FEE? (B) IS THERE A PROVISION IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ADJUDICATE THE LEVY OF LATE FILING FEE U /S.234E AND DELETE THE SAME ON THE GROUND OF REASONABLE CAUSE EXPLAINING THE REASO NS FOR DEFAULT? MP NO.23-26/CHNY/2019 (IN ITA NO.195-198/CHNY/2018) :- 3 -: 4. WITH REGARD TO ISSUE AT PARA 3.1(A), IT IS PARAM OUNT TO UNDERSTAND THE EXACT NATURE OF THE LEVY OF LATE FILING FEE U/S.234E IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRESENT PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4.1 THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF LEVYING THE LATE FILING FEE U/S.234E WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN T HE CASE OF RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA V. UNION OF INDIA [2015] 54 TAXMANN.COM 200 (BOMBAY) /[20 15] 229 TAXMAN 596 (BOMBAY)/[2015] 373 ITR 268 (BOMBAY)/[2015] 275 CTR 138 (BOMBAY). 4.1 IN THAT CASE, REPRESENTING THE INCOME TAX DEPAR TMENT, THE ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF THE LATE FILING FEE LEVIED U/S.234E AS UNDER: 7. KEEPING THIS OBJECT IN MIND, THE LEARNED ADDITI ONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL SUBMITTED THAT TIMELY SUBMISSION OF TDS STATEMENTS CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF PERSONS ON WHOSE BEHALF TAX IS DEDUCTED, BECOMES VERY CRUCIAL BECAUSE UNLESS AND UNTIL THE REVENUE RECEIVES THE DETAILS OF THE TAX DEDUCTED TH ROUGH THE TDS STATEMENTS), TIMELY PROCESSING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS OF ASSESSEE S SEEKING CREDIT OF TDS IS NOT POSSIBLE. IN CASE THE DEPARTMENT GOES AHEAD AND PRO CESSES THE INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING CREDIT FOR TDS DUE T O NON-FILING OF TDS RETURN/STATEMENTS BY THE DEDUCTOR, THEN THE GRIEVANC E OF THE DEDUCTEE WOULD BE MULTIPLIED IN AS MUCH AS INSTEAD OF ISSUING A REFUN D TO THE ASSESSEE (IN A GIVEN CASE,), INFRUCTUOUS DEMANDS WOULD TO BE RAISED. HEN CE NON-FILING OF THE TDS RETURN/STATEMENTS BY THE DEDUCTOR IN A TIMELY MANNER HAS MULTITUDE EFFECTS ERODING THE CREDIBILITY OF AN EFFICIENT TAX ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM, WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL. 8. THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE TITLE OF SECTION 234E PER SE INDICATES THAT THE SECTION IS R EGARDING COLLECTION OF A FEE. THIS WAS NOT A PENAL PROVISION BUT A FEE FOR NOT FURNISH ING THE TDS RETURN/STATEMENTS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME FRAME AS THE LATE SUBMIS SION OF TDS STATEMENTS CREATES ADDITIONAL WORK FOR THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IN MA NY CASES, DUE TO LATE SUBMISSION OF THE TDS RETURN/STATEMENTS, THE DEPARTM ENT HAS TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALREADY PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE DEDUCTEE FOR DETERMINING HIS CORRECT TAX LIABILITY. MOREOVER, IN CASE OF AN INCO ME TAX RETURN HAVING A REFUND CLAIM, THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO PAY EXTRA INTEREST DUE TO DELAY IN DETERMINING THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF REFUND FOR WANT OF INFORMATION OF TAX DEDUCTED, WHICH IN TURN RESULTS IN DELAY OF ISSUE OF REFUND. THE FEE UNDER SECTION 234E IS LEVIED TO ADDRESS THIS ADDITIONAL WORK BURDEN FORCED UPON THE DEPARTM ENT BY THE DEDUCTOR BY NOT FURNISHING THE INFORMATION IN TIME WHICH HE IS STAT UTORILY BOUND TO FURNISH WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR G ENERAL SUBMITTED THAT LOOKING AT IT FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT SE CTION 234E OF THE ACT IS EITHER ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION OR IN ANY WAY VIOLATES ARTIC LE 14 THEREOF. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE PETITION AN D THE SAME OUGHT TO BE DISMISSED WITH COSTS. 4.2 AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE ABOVE DETAILED CLARIFI CATION ON THE NATURE OF LEVY OF LATE FILING FEE U/S.234E, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY HELD THAT 13. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT AS PER THE EXISTING P ROVISIONS, A PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX (THE DEDUCTOR) IS REQUIRED TO FURNI SH PERIODICAL QUARTERLY STATEMENTS CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF DEDUCTION OF T AX MADE DURING THE QUARTER, BY THE PRESCRIBED DUE DATE. UNDOUBTEDLY, DELAY IN FURN ISHING OF TDS RETURNS/STATEMENTS HAS A CASCADING EFFECT. UNDER TH E INCOME TAX ACT, THERE IS AN OBLIGATION ON THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT TO PROCESS THE INCOME TAX RETURNS WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD FROM THE DATE OF FILING. THE D EPARTMENT CANNOT ACCURATELY PROCESS THE RETURN ON WHOSE BEHALF TAX HAS BEEN DED UCTED (THE DEDUCTEE) UNTIL INFORMATION OF SUCH DEDUCTIONS IS FURNISHED BY THE DEDUCTOR WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. THE TIMELY PROCESSING OF RETURNS IS THE BEDRO CK OF AN EFFICIENT TAX ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM. IF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS, S PECIALLY HAVING REFUND CLAIMS, ARE NOT PROCESSED IN A TIMELY MANNER, THEN (I) A DEL AY OCCURS IN THE GRANTING OF CREDIT OF TDS TO THE PERSON ON WHOSE BEHALF TAX IS DEDUCTED (THE DEDUCTEE) AND CONSEQUENTLY LEADS TO DELAY IN ISSUING REFUNDS TO T HE DEDUCTEE, OR RAISING OF MP NO.23-26/CHNY/2019 (IN ITA NO.195-198/CHNY/2018) :- 4 -: INFRUCTUOUS DEMANDS AGAINST THE DEDUCTEE: (II) THE CONFIDENCE OF A GENERAL TAXPAYER ON THE TAX ADMINISTRATION IS ERODED; (III) THE LATE PAYMENT OF REFUND AFFECTS THE GOVERNMENT FINANCIALLY AS THE GOVERNMEN T HAS TO PAY INTEREST FOR DELAY IN GRANTING THE REFUNDS; AND (IV) THE DELAY IN RECEI PT OF REFUNDS RESULTS INTO A CASH FLOW CRUNCH, ESPECIALLY FOR BUSINESS ENTITIES. 14. WE FIND THAT THE LEGISLATURE TOOK NOTE OF THE F ACT THAT A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF DEDUCTORS WERE NOT FURNISHING THEIR TDS RETURN/STATE MENTS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME FRAME WHICH WAS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL. THIS LED TO ADDITIONAL WORK BURDEN UPON THE DEPARTMENT DUE TO THE FAULT OF THE DEDUCTOR BY NOT FURNISHING THE INFORMATION IN TIME AND WHICH HE WAS STATUTORILY BOUND TO FURNISH. IT IS IN THIS LIGHT, AND TO COMPENSATE FOR THE ADDITIONAL WORK BURDEN FORCED UP ON THE DEPARTMENT, THAT A FEE WAS SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE A CT. LOOKING AT THIS FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, WE ARE CLEARLY OF THE VIEW THAT SECTIO N 234E OF THE ACT IS NOT PUNITIVE IN NATURE BUT A FEE WHICH IS A FIXED CHARGE FOR THE EXTRA SERVICE WHICH THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO PROVIDE DUE TO THE LATE FILING OF THE TDS STATEMENTS 4.2 FURTHER, HONBLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN IN THE CASE OF DUNDLOD SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN V. UNION OF INDIA (RAJ) [2015] 63 TAXMANN.COM 243 (RAJAS THAN)/[2015] 235 TAXMAN 446 (RAJASTHAN)/[20L6] 284 CTR 175 (RAJASTHAN) ALSO FOLLOW ED THE ABOVE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AND CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS AND DO NOT FIN D ANY GOOD GROUND TO TAKE A VIEW DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE TAKEN BY THE BOMBAY HIG H COURT IN RASHMIKANT KUNDALIAS CASE (SUPRA). THE UNAMENDED SECTION 200 R EFERRED TO THE LEVY ON THE LATE FILING OF RETURNS AS PENALTY. IT WAS THEREAFTE R TERMED AS FEE, WHICH IS A COMPENSATORY IN NATURE. 4.3 AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AS WELL AS THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE LEVY OF LATE FILING FEE U/S.234B IS A COMPENSATORY IN NATURE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST PREMISE OF THE HONBLE ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH THAT THE LEVY OF LATE FILING FEE U/S.2 34E IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AS IT IS LEGA LLY UNSUSTAINABLE. HENCE, CANCELLING THE LEVY U/S.234E, ON THE BASIS OF SUCH VIEW, IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT AS WELL AS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF HONBLE HI GH COURTS OF BOMBAY AND RAJASTHAN. 5. THE SECOND ISSUE IS AS TO - IS THERE A PROVISION IN THE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ADJUDICATE THE LEVY OF LATE FILING FEE U/S.234E AND DELETE THE SAME ON THE GROUND OF REASONABLE CAUSE EXPLAINI NG THE REASONS FOR DEFAULT? 5.1 MORE IMPORTANTLY, IN THE WRIT PETITION FILED BE FORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA V. UNION OF INDIA (SUPR A), THE PETITIONER CHALLENGED CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SEC.234E ON THE GROUND T HAT SECTION 234E WAS EXTREMELY ONEROUS IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT VESTED W ITH ANY POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE TDS RETURN/STATEMENTS BELATEDLY. 5.2 IN RESPONSE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONER RULED THAT: 18. .... WE ALSO DO NOT FIND THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 234E AS BEING ONEROUS ON THE GROUND THAT THE SECTION DOES NOT EMPOWER THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN LATE FILING OF THE TDS RETURN/STATEMENTS, OR THAT NO APPEAL IS PROVIDED FOR FROM AN ARBITRARY ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 234E. IT MUST BE NOTED THAT A RIGHT OF APPEAL IS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT BUT IS A CREATURE O F THE STATUTE, AND IF THE LEGISLATURE DEEMS IT FIT NOT TO PROVIDE A REMEDY OF APPEAL. O B E IT. EVEN IN SUCH A SCENARIO IT IS NOT AS IF THE AGGRIEVED PARTY IS LEFT REMEDILESS. S UCH AGGRIEVED PERSON CAN ALWAYS APPROACH THIS COURT IN ITS EXTRAORDINARY EQUITABLE JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, AS THE CASE MAY B E. WE THEREFORE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONERS THAT SIMPLY BE CAUSE NO REMEDY OF APPEAL MP NO.23-26/CHNY/2019 (IN ITA NO.195-198/CHNY/2018) :- 5 -: PROVIDED FOR, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E ARE ON EROUS. SIMILARLY, ON THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE FIND THE ARGUMENT REGARDING CONDONATION OF DELAY ALSO TO BE WHOLLY WITHOUT ANY MERIT . 5.3 THUS, WHEN THE PETITIONER, WHO CHALLENGED THE C ONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SEC. 234E, ADMITTED THAT THE AOS ARE NOT VESTED WITH THE POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY/TDS DEFAULT, THE HONBLE ITAT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, MANDATES THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE REASONS AND CONDONE THE DELAY/NOT TO LEVY LATE FILING FEE IF THE DEFAULT IS ON REASONABLE GROUNDS. HONBLE F-UGH COURT OF BOMBAY WENT ONE STEP FURTHER AND HELD THAT AOS NOT HAVING POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY DOES NOT MAKE PROVISIONS OF SE C. 234E AS CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID. 5.4 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLE ARLY ESTABLISHED THAT ACT DOES NOT PLACE OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO I SSUE NOTICE BEFORE PREPARING OR GENERATING THE INTIMATION ENDER AFORESAID SECTION. SECTION 234E IS AN AUTOMATIC, NON- NEGOTIABLE AND MANDATORY FEE ARISING OUT OF NON-COM PLIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE-DEDUCTOR TO SECTION 200A WHICH MAKES FILLING COMPULSORY. THE LE GISLATURE DID NOT BESTOW ANY DISCRETION OR POWER TO ANY INCOME TAX AUTHORITY TO CONDONE THE DELAY OR WAIVE THE LEVY. 5.5 THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT CREATES A N ANOMALOUS SITUATION WHEREIN, ON THE ONE HAND, THE HONHLE TAT MANDATES THE TDS ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DEFAULTER TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR THE DELAY AND D ELETE THE LEVY U/S.234E IF THE EXPLANATION FOUND REASONABLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, AS ADMITTED BY THE TAX PAYER PETITIONER AND CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS AS DISCUSSED A BOVE, THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE INCOME TAX ACT TO ENABLE THE TDS AO TO CONDUCT SUCH EXAMINATION OR TO HAVE ANY DISCRETION TO LEVY OR OTHERWISE. THIS SITUATION MAK ES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E UNWORKABLE. 5.6 IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE HONHLE I TAT ERRED BY NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 234E OF THE INC OME TAX ACT. BY ITS DECISION, THE HONBLE ITAT MANDATES THE TDS-AO TO ADJUDICATE THE MATTER AN D NOT TO LEVY THE LATE FILING FEE U/S.234E IF THE DEFAULT IS ON REASONABLE GROUNDS WHI CH IS IN CLEAR CONTRAVENTION TO THE VERY PROVISION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THUS, HONBL E ITAT REQUIRES THE AO TO CARRY THE FUNCTION FOR WHICH HE IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE I NCOME TAX ACT. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THE HONBLE ITAT MAY KINDLY RECONSIDER THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS CITED IN PARA 4 AND 5 AB OVE. HENCE, IT IS ALSO RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT HONBLE ITAT MAY BE PLEASED NOT TO CANCEL LATE FILING FEE U/S.234E OF RS.21,460 LEVIED FOR QUARTER I OF F.Y.2014-15 (A.Y.2015-16) AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND TH EREBY SUSTAIN THE LEVY OF LATE FILING FEE U/S.234E OF THE I.T ACT IN THIS CASE. 5. IN REPLY, THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. 7. AT THE OUTSET, A PERUSAL OF THE MPS CLEARLY SHOW S THAT THE PRAYER OF THE REVENUE IS FOR RE-CONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. THIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, TH E REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN MP NO.23-26/CHNY/2019 (IN ITA NO.195-198/CHNY/2018) :- 6 -: ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL. CONSEQUENTLY, MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DI SMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILE D BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND MARCH, 2019, IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( ABRAHAM P.GEORGE ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ' ) (GEORGE MATHAN) % /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 1 /DATED: 22 ND MARCH, 2019. TLN , )%23 43 /COPY TO: 1. ( /APPELLANT 4. 5 /CIT 2. )*( /RESPONDENT 5. 3 )%% /DR 3. 5 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. ' /GF
