Bank of India Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai)
In the case of Bank of India vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai examined the legality of the imposition of TDS late fees under section 234E for periods before June 1, 2015. This case presents an important question regarding the time-specific applicability of certain tax laws, contributing to ongoing discourse within the domain of taxation.
Analysis: The case began with the levy of a late filing fee under section 234E by the TDS-CPC for a delay in filing the quarterly TDS returns in Form No. 26Q. The due date was October 15, 2012, but the assessee filed it only by January 3, 2014, resulting in the imposition of a penalty. Upon the appeal to the CIT(A), the penalty was upheld, leading the assessee to approach the ITAT.
Notably, the tribunal adjudicated the matter based on its previous decisions, referencing the landmark ruling of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi V/s Union of India. The High Court held that the amendment to Section 200A by inserting clause (c) only came into effect from June 1, 2015, and therefore, no fees would be applicable for any period prior to that date.
Relying on this precedent, ITAT Chennai concluded that no late fees under section 234E should have been levied on the Bank of India for any period before June 1, 2015, and directed the Assessing Officer to revise the demand raised against the assessee accordingly.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
1. The sole grievance of the assessee in the captioned appeal is confirmation of levy of fees u/s. 234E for late filing of quarterly TDS returns in Form No. 26Q. The due date was 15-10-2012 whereas the return has been filed by the assessee on 03-01-2014 and accordingly, TDS-CPC levied late filing fees u/s 234E for Rs.14712/-. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
2. The registry has noted a delay of 28 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR. Considering the period of delay, we condone the same and proceed for adjudication of appeal on merits.
3. We find that this issue has been adjudicated by us in assessee’s favour in host of decisions considering the favorable decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi V/s Union of India (73 com 252 26/08/2016). In this decision, Hon’ble Court has held that since the amendment to Section 200A by way of insertion of clause (c) is only with effect from 01-06-2015, no fees would be payable by the assessee for any period prior to 01-06-2015. Therefore, taking consistent view, we would hold that no fees u/s 234E could have been levied for any period prior to 01-06-2015. The Ld. AO is directed to revise the demand raised against the assessee.
4. The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order.
Order pronounced on 01st June, 2023.
