M/S. PROTECH ENGINEERS BANGALORE PVT LTD., V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

WP/12296/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Protech Engineers Bangalore Pvt. Ltd., represented by Mr. Purna Babu Challagundla, challenging various intimations issued by the Income Tax Department regarding the computation, determination, and demand of late fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the demands were impermissible as they pertained to periods before the enactment of Section 200A(1)(c) on 01.06.2015, which governs the processing of TDS statements. The court examined the dates of the demands and found that most were issued before the critical date, leading to the decision to set aside these demands based on precedents and statutory provisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 752578 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: ANNAMALAI
• Keywords: Income Tax; Intimation; Late fee; TDS
• Section: 234E; 200A; 154; 206CB

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:23108 WP No. 12296 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 12296 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S. PROTECH ENGINEERS BANGALORE PVT. LTD., COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 MR. PURNA BABU CHALLAGUNDLA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SON OF MR. SUBRAMANYAM NAIDU CHALLAGUNDLA, NO.1032, KRISHNA KRUPA, 2ND FLOOR, 13TH CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 070. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANNAMALAI S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS, TDS RECONCILIATION ANALYSIS AND CORRECTION ENABLING SYSTEM TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR - 3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH – 201 010. Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:23108 WP No. 12296 of 2023 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), HMT BHAWAN, NO.59, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032. 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS TDS WARD 2(3), BANGALORE, HMT BHAWAN, NO.59, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ARAVIND K.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.DILIP M., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE VARIOUS INTIMATIONS ISSUED BY THE R-1 IN SO FAR AS COMPUTATION DETERMINATION AND DEMAND OF LATE FEE UNDER SECITON 234E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AS FOLLOWS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:23108 WP No. 12296 of 2023 ORDER The petitioner has challenged the Intimation under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') at Annexures-A1, A2, A3, A4 with respect to TDS/TCS Form Numbers 24Q and 26Q for the financial year 2012-13; Intimation under Section 200A/206CB of the Act at Annexure-A5 with respect to TDS/TCS Form Number 26Q for the financial year 2012-13; Intimation under Section 200A/206CB of the Act at Annexures-A6, A7, A8, A9, A11 with respect to TDS/TCS Form Numbers 24Q and 26Q for the financial year 2013-14; Intimation under Section 154 of the Act at Annexure-A10 with respect to TDS/TCS Form Number 24Q for the financial year 2013-14; Intimation under Section 200A/206CB of the Act at Annexures-A12, A13 and A14 with respect to TDS/TCS Form Numbers 24Q and 26Q for the financial year 2014-15. 2. The case that is made out by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the action of the revenue in taking recourse to Section 200A of the Act for the purpose of demand of late fee under Section 234E of the Act is impermissible as the demand relates to the period prior to 01.06.2015. Demand - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:23108 WP No. 12296 of 2023 has been issued prior to 01.06.2015 i.e., prior to coming into force of Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act and accordingly, the default under Section 234E of the Act cannot be visited with the fee calculated under Section 200A of the Act. 3. Reliance is placed on the order of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India reported in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka). Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo and has produced summary of late fees under Section 234E of the Act along with dates of processing of TDS Statements under Section 200A of the Act. 4. A perusal of the demand raised would indicate that except four of the entries, all demands raised are prior to 01.06.2015. In the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench, all demands raised regarding Late Fees under Section 234E of the Act, prior to 01.06.2015 are liable to be set aside. However, insofar as four of the demands made, same are liable to be set aside in the light of the proviso to Section 200A of the Act, which provides that no intimation shall be sent after expiry of one year for the end of the Financial Year, in which the - 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23108 WP No. 12296 of 2023 statement is filed. Accordingly, as regards intimation made at Sl.Nos.A6, A8, A12 and A13 are liable to be set aside in the light of the proviso to Section 200A of the Act, while remaining demands all being made before 01.06.2015 are liable to be set aside. In view of the above observation, petition is allowed. Sd/- JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 "