RISE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD.,MADURAI V. ITO, TDS , MADURAI

ITA 251/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

Rise Advertising Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which upheld a late fee imposed by the CPC for the delayed filing of a TDS statement. The late fee was charged under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the amendment introduced by the Finance Act 2015, effective from 01.06.2015. The assessee argued that the late fee should not apply as the filing occurred before this date, referencing several High Court decisions. However, the Tribunal noted that the TDS statement was filed and processed after the effective date of the amendment, thus upholding the late fee. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's argument regarding the lack of an original order for rectification under section 154, stating that the intimation referred to an earlier order passed under section 200A, which had been rectified.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779422 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Conceria International (P) Ltd. v. ITO, Apparel Marketing and Manufacturing International v. PCIT, Lingeswara Creations v. PCIT, Sri Rujula International v. PCIT, True Blue Voice India (P) Ltd. v. CCIT (TDS)
• Laws Referred To: Income-Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: J. SARAVANAN
• Keywords: TDS; Rectification of order
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ \u0011ा यपीठ, चे\u0016ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0019ी मनु क ुमा र िग र, \u0011ा ियक सद एवं \u0019ी जगदीश, लेखा सद क े सम' BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.251/Chny/2025 िनधा 7रण वष7 /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rise Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Door No.10, 2nd Floor, West Masi Street, Madurai – 625 001. PAN: AAFCR 0150E Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Madurai. (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant) (\b यथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीलाथE की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate GHथE की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 23.03.2021. 2. There was delay of 1339 days in filing the appeal , which has been condoned by the Bench vide interim order dated 19-03-2025 after considering the overall facts and substances of the case and Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.251/Chny/2025 Rise Advertising Pvt. Ltd. :- 2 -: noting that assessee has opted for VSVS. It has now been stated that the application for VSVS has been rejected by the CIT(TDS). The appeal is accordingly admitted and heard. 3. The assessee has raised ground of appeal as under: “A. For that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) under section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act) dated 23.03.2021 is erroneous, bad in law, and was passed ignoring the facts and merits of the case. B. For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that late fee u/s 234E of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act) for a period prior to 01.06.2015 is not leviable, even in the light of the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in the case of Conceria International (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2023)(157 taxmann.com 335) C. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have seen that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the cases of Apparel Marketing and Manufacturing International v. PCIT (W.P.No.4331 of 2024 dated 12.09.2024), Lingeswara Creations v. PCIT (2024)(168 taxmann.com 383), Sri Rujula International v. PCIT (2024)(167 taxmann.com 367) and True Blue Voice India (P) Ltd. v. CCIT (TDS) (2024)(158 taxmann.com 67) held that late fee cannot be imposed u/s 234E of the Act for a period prior to 01.06.2015, while processing the application for TDS under section 200A of the Act. D. For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that later decision will prevail over earlier decision. E. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to seen that where two views are in existence or possible, one in favour of the assessee and the other against him, the view favourable to the assessee should be taken.” 4. The assessee has also raised the addition grounds of appeal, which are as under: G. For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that section 154 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, deals with rectification and an intimation cannot be issued under the said section. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.251/Chny/2025 Rise Advertising Pvt. Ltd. :- 3 -: H. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noted that for a rectification to be carried out under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there should be an original order or an order already existing which may be subject to rectification u/s 154 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.” 5. The assessee has filed TDS statement in Form-26Q for Quarter.- 1 of Financial Year 2015-16 on 15.07.2016, the due date of which was on 15.07.2015. As there was delay of filing Form-26Q, the Centralized Processing Cell, Ghaziabad (hereinafter as “CPC”) has levied a late fee of Rs. 72,600/- u/s. 234E of the Act. The assessee challenged this levy before the Ld. CIT(A), who upheld the late fee. 6. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) for the assessee submitted that the quarter involved in F.Y 2015-16 , but the charging of late fee Section 234E, in processing u/s. 200A of the Act was introduced with effect from 01.06.2015, therefore in light of the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Conceria International (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2023] 157 taxmann.com 335 (Mad.), late fee cannot be charged. The ld. AR also submitted that as per the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of True Blue Voice India (P.) Ltd. v. CCIT(TDS) [2024] 158 taxmann.com 64 (Mad), late fee cannot be imposed u/s. 234E of the Act for the period 01.06.2015 while processing the collection of TDS u/s. 200A of the Act. The Ld. AR has filed additional grounds and argued that the late fee has been Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.251/Chny/2025 Rise Advertising Pvt. Ltd. :- 4 -: issued by way of intimation u/s. 154 of the Act and there being no original order intimation, late fee cannot be charged in intimation u/s. 154 of the Act. 7. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), On the other hand, has submitted that the assessee has filed statement in Form-26Q on 15.07.2016 and has subsequently corrected on 31.12.2019 and on 05.01.2020. The Ld. AR argued that the due date of filing the return was on 15.07.2015, which is after insertion of 200A(1)(c) of the Act with effect from 01.06.2015 for charging fee while processing the return after 01.06.2015 the CPC was justified to charge late fee u/s. 234E of the Act. The Ld AR submitted that the charging of fee is in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of True Blue Voice India (P.) Ltd. v. CCIT(TDS), supra. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has filed TDS statement of Quarter -1 for F.Y 2015-16 in Form-26Q on 15.07.2016 as against the due date of 15.07.2015. The assessee has filled appeal against the intimation u/s 154 dated 13-02-2020, which mentions the earlier intimation as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.251/Chny/2025 Rise Advertising Pvt. Ltd. :- 5 -: Statement type: Regular Token Number : 0502xxxxxxxx1665 Communication Reference No. TDS/1516/26Q/D/100019832781 Order pass Date 15-Jul-2016 Correction * 4100xxxxxxx4000 TDS/1516/26Q/D/100036368424 31-Dec-2019 Correction* 4100xxxxxx1710 TDS/1516/26Q/D/100036411023 05-Jan-2020 9. The Ld AR has raised the additional ground that demand has been raised in the intimation u/s 154 and there being no original order rectification order cannot be passed. We do not agree with the submission of the Ld. AR that there was no original order for making rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. As the intimation clearly refers to the earlier order passed u/s. 200A of the Act by the CPC which has been rectified. Accordingly, the additional grounds raised are rejected. 10. As regards to Ground A to E, it is seen that section 200A(1)(c) of the Act charging the fee in accordance to provisions of section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS statement u/s. 200A of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2015 with effect from 1-6- 2015. The assessee has filed statement and correction statements on or after 15.06.2016 as against the due date for filling the statement of 15.07.2015. The Ld. AR has placed reliance on the case of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of True Blue Voice India (P.) Ltd. (supra), however, the Hon’ble High Court in the case has clearly held that late fee u/s. 234E of the Act can be charged where the return is Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.251/Chny/2025 Rise Advertising Pvt. Ltd. :- 6 -: filed and processed after 01.06.2015, pursuant to the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) of the Act. Since the assessee’s return was filed and processed after the said date, the late fee has been rightly levied u/s. 234E of the Act. We, therefore uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the CPC, and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 13th day of October, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु क ुमार िग र) (Manu Kumar Giri) \u0011ाियक सद / Judicial Member (जगदीश) (Jagadish) लेखा लेखा लेखा लेखा सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य /Accountant Member चे\u0013नई/Chennai, \u0016दनांक/Dated: 13th October, 2025. EDN, Sr. P.S आदेश क\u0019 \bितिल प अ े षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u000f/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय \bितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "