Sameer Granites Pvt.Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)
In the instant case, the assessee had submitted that the orders passed u/s 200A of the Act were never served on the assessee physically or otherwise. It was stated that intimation u/s 200A downloaded from the office of the Assessing Officer by the Tax Professional, was not communicated to the assessee and since the Tax Professional had left the service of the assessee, the assessee has not able to correctly state when the intimation u/s 200A of the Act was downloaded.
It is stated that only when demand were sought to be collected by the Revenue, the assessee came to know of the order passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act. We are of the view that the submissions of the assessee cannot be brushed aside as false.
In the of the instant case, prima facie, the issue on merits is seen covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra. Taking note of judicial pronouncement where expression “sufficient cause” has received a liberal construction, we condone the delay of filing these appeals before the CIT(A).
We deem it appropriate to remit the issue of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act through intimation u/s 200A of the Act to the file of the CIT(A) (since the CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits). The CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before a decision is taken in this matter. It is ordered accordingly.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against ten orders of the CIT(A), all dated 09.09.2021 (except for ITA No.519/Bang/2021, where the impugned order of the CIT(A) is dated 23.09.2021). The orders of the CIT(A) arise out of orders of CPC, TDS, passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment years are 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016.
2. Common issues are raised in these appeals, hence, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. The identical grounds are raised in these appeals and they read as follows:-
“1. The impugned order upholding intimation under section 200A of the Act is erroneous and contrary to the law and facts, against weight of evidence and probabilities of the case;
2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal;
3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide;
4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A of the Act does not cover default in payment of late fee under section 234E of the Act with respect to statements filed prior to 01.06.2015;
5. The Learned CIT(A) has erred upholding levy of late fee for the period prior to 01.06.2015;
6. The Learned CIT{A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee without there being any authority as ruled by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016j 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka);
7. The levy of fee is unjust considering the discrimination in the time period allowed to file quarterly TDS statements of government dedicators and non-government dedutor;
8. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the AO has erred in not giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing such late fee as the levy of late fee is punitive in nature;
9. The late fee specified under section 234 E has to be levied only from the date of payment of tax deducted at source followed by the date of filing of returns but not from the due date of filing of statement considering the fact that TDS statements cannot be filed before payment of taxes. On this ground, the appellant is relying on the following case laws.
9.1 Powal creative vision (P) Limited v. Ad.CIT – 55 DTR 241 (Mumbai ITAT)
9.2 GSL Nova Perto Chemicals Limited vs. JCIT ITAT No.2277/Ahmedabad/202.
10. The learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in not appreciating that there was no intentional delay in filing of the quarterly statement for the subject period relevant to the appeal.
On the basis of above grounds and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing with the consent of the Honourable Tribunal, it is prayed that the order passed under section 250, to the extent it is against the appellant, be quashed and relief sought be granted.”
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The assessee filed belatedly the TDS statements in Form 24Q and 26Q for various quarters for assessment years 20132014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. The statements were processed by the Assessing Officer vide orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, wherein fee u/s 234E of the Act was levied for late filing of TDS statements. The details of levy u/s 234E of the Act, the period for which the levy was made, are detailed as under:-
