SUNIL MANCHANDA,AGRA V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER-(TDS), AGRA/DCIT CPC, TDS, AGRA

ITA 578/AGR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Sunil Manchanda, who appealed against the levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act for TDS returns of various quarters of the Assessment Year 2013-14. The fees were initially imposed by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) and confirmed by the CIT(A). The primary legal contention was whether the amendment to section 200A, which pertains to the computation and intimation of TDS, had a retrospective effect. The Tribunal examined the applicability of this amendment in light of judicial precedents, particularly focusing on the prospective nature of the amendment as established by the Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi vs UOI.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 666485 (TRIBUNAL-AGRA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAILENDRA SHRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPENDRA MOHAN
• Keywords: Late filing fees; TDS returns; Assessment Year 2013-14; Prospective effect
• Section: 234E; 200A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.578/Agr/2024 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.579/Agr/2024 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.580/Agr/2024 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Sunil Manchanda B-9, Lawyers’ Colony Dayal Bagh, Agra 282005 बनाम/ Vs. ITO-TDS ̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./TAN/GIR No. AGRS-14263-E (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Deependra Mohan (CA) – Ld. AR ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by levy of late filing fess u/s 234E qua TDS returns for various quarters of Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The registry has noted a delay of 126 days in the appeals which stands condoned. 2 2. From the records, it emerges that the assessee was saddled with later filing fees u/s 234E by CPC while processing TDS returns, The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same in the absence of any explanation from the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. We find that this issue stand covered in assessee’s favor by the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi vs UOI (73 Taxmann.com 252) holding that the amendment in section 200A came into effect only on 01-06-2015 and the same would have prospective effect. Therefore, there could not be any levy of fee for late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act while issuing intimation u/s 200A prior to 01-06-2015. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Court were as under:- \"26. Under these circumstances, we find that no further discussion would be required for examining the constitutional validity of section 234E of the Act. Save and except to observe that the question of constitutional validity of section 234E of the Act before the Division Bench of this Court shall remain open and shall not be treated as concluded. 27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the impugned notices under section 200A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of fee under section 234E as they relate to for the period of the tax deducted prior to 1-6-2015 are set aside. It is clarified that the present judgment would not be interpreted to mean that even if the payment of the fees under section 234E already made as per demand/intimation under section 200A of the Act for the TDS for the period prior to 1-4-2015 is permitted to be reopened for claiming refund. The judgment will have prospective effect accordingly. It is further observed that the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E shall remain open to be considered by the Division Bench and shall not get concluded by the order of the learned Single Judge.\" It was thus held that amendment u/s 200A was prospective in nature and therefore, no computation of fee for demand or intimation u/s 200A could be made for the TDS deducted for the respective Assessment Years prior to 01-06-2015. 3 4. The revenue has quoted the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Rajesh Kourani vs. UOI (83 Taxmann.com 137) which has taken a contrary view. Since no decision of jurisdictional high court is been shown to us, we follow the analogy of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in CIT V/s Vegetable products Ltd. (1972 88 ITR 192) to hold that in case of two reasonable constructions of taxing statutes, the one that favors the assessee must be adopted. Accordingly, we direct Ld. AO to delete the impugned fees and revise thd demand as raised against the assessee. 5. All the appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) Ɋाियक सद˟ /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 28-03-2025 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT AGRA "