×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
These two appeals are directed against the orders of CIT(A)-10, Bangalore, both dated 25.07.2018, for Assessment Year 2013-14 for non-admission of the assessee’s appeals against the intimations issued by the ACIT-TDS-CPC u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) requiring the assessee to pay late filing fees u/s 234E of the Act; by not condoning the delay in filing the appeals before him.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as submitted, are as under:
2.1 The assessee filed the TDS statements in Form 24Q for Quarter 4 of Financial Year 2012-13 on 29.10.2013. Subsequent thereto, the assessee received an intimation from ACIT, CPC-TDS, under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 10.11.2013, levying fees of Rs.33,400/- under section 234E of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A)-10, Bangalore, dismissed the assessee’s appeal, in limine, vide order dated 25.07.2018 by refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. On similar facts for Quarter 4 (Form No.26Q), the Assessing Officer (AO) passed order under section 154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act dated 21.11.2013 levying fees of Rs.5800/- under section 234E of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A)-10, Bangalore, vide order dated 25.07.2018 dismissed the assessee’s appeal, in limine, by not condoning the delay of almost 3 ½ years in filing the appeal before him.
3.1 Aggrieved by the orders of CIT(A)-10, Bangalore, dated 25.07.2018, the assessee has preferred these two appeals for Assessment Years 2013-14, raising the following identical grounds:
1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), have not admitted the appeal filed by the appellant and have erred in holding that reason furnished by the appellant for delay in filing the appeal is not a sufficient cause.
2. The reference of judgment given in order is not applicable to facts of the case and therefore applying the same is bad in law and liable for rejection.
3. While applying the case of Jurisdictional High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi, the CIT(A) fail to appreciate the fact that assessee had neither paid the late fees u/s 234E nor has he asked for reopening the case. Therefore applying of specific para of judgment is not correct. Infact the applicable portion of judgment is "AO does not have power to levy fees u/s 234E for the period prior to 01/06/2015. Therefore what is applied by AO is liable to be rejected and appeal to be allowed.
4. In any case and without prejudice, the act of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) in dismissing the appeal is bad in law though the sufficient cause is shown for delay in filing the appeal and therefore the delay in filing the appeal has to be condoned and appeal has to be allowed.
5. In view of the above and on the other grounds of the appeal to be adduced at time of hearing, it is requested the order of Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) dismissing the appeal to be quashed and the late filing fees levied u/s 234E to be deleted.
3.2 From a perusal of the statement of facts, grounds of appeal (supra) and the material on record, the issue for consideration in both the appeals before us is in respect of the intimation issued u/s 200A of the Act requiring the assessee to pay late fees u/s 234E of the Act. The issue raised is in respect of the charging of late fees payable u/s 234E of the Act prior to the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) of the Act while processing the TDS returns. It is the assessee’s contention that the legislature had inserted clause (c) to section 200(1) of the Act specifically w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and therefore in respect of TDS statements filed for the period prior to