Tamil Nadu Grama Bank Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai)
ITAT Chennai held that delay of 6 to 9 years in filing of an appeal against levy of late fees u/s 234 with a plea that they were waiting for outcome of judicial decisions not condoned.
Facts- The grievance of the assessee in all the appeals is common i.e., levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act for late filing of quarterly TDS returns in Form No.24Q / 26Q.
Notably, the appellant argues that the appeals before the first appellate authority was dismissed for want of condonation of delay. The appellant alleged that the delay was not intentional and there was reasonable cause for late filing of the appeal since the law was not settled at the relevant point of time and the assessee’s claim became tenable only due to subsequent favorable decisions rendered on the issue of levy of fees u/s 234E.
Notably, the delay ranges between 2175 days to 3300 days which roughly translates into 6 to 9 years. The same has led CIT(A) to dismiss all the appeals for want of condonation of delay.
Conclusion- Held that difficulty in compliance or change in concerned offices / professional or the fact that the TIN facilitation centre was far-off could not be a reasonable cause to justify such an inordinate delay. The plea that the assessee was waiting for the outcome of judicial decisions also does not impress us since the assessee’s grievance could be redressed only by filing an appeal by the assessee only. Accordingly, the action of CIT(A) in dismissing the appeals of the assessee for want of condonation of inordinate delay confirmed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
1. The grievance of the assessee in the aforesaid appeals is common i.e., levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act for late filing of quarterly TDS returns in Form No.24Q / 26Q. For the purpose of adjudication, ITA No.1009/Chny/2023 is taken to be lead appeal which arises out of impugned order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 25.07.2023 in the matter of an intimation issued by Traces u/s 200A of the Act on 11.12.2013. The grounds taken by the assessee reads as under:
GROUND NO 1: REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF PE LAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A)
The Id. CIT(A) has erred and not considered that Delay in filing appeal was not deliberate and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant treating the appeal as time barred without going into merits of the case. The Appellant Bank relies on various Judgements of Hon’ble Courts related to Condonation of Delay in filing appeals and requests Hon’ble ITAT to consider the appeal and set aside the order of Id. CIT(A).
GROUND NO 2: Insertion of clause (c) to section 200a (1) of the IT Act specifically w.e.f,1 .06.2015
The Id. CIT(A) has erred and not considered that TDS-CPC has been empowered to make claim and generate intimation u/s 200A for late fees (u/s 234E) for all the statements filed on or after 01 Jun-2015and not before. Hence, The Appellant pleads that intimations against all statement filed before 01 -Jun-201 5 should be quashed.
GROUND NO, 3: Prospective effect w.e.f. 01-Jun-2015 of Section 200A(1(c) read with Section 234E
The Id. CIT (A) has erred and not considered that since the appeal under consideration is in respect to Demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E for TDS returns filed pertaining to period prior to 01.06.2015, the impugned notices for late filing levy shall be quashed considering the amendment in section 200A is effective only from 01-06-2015.
GROUND NO 4; Hon’ble High Court Case Law Pronouncing Judgement in Assessee’s favour in similar cases (along with Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement in case of cleavage of opinion between different High Courts)
1 .Hon’ble Karnataka high court and Hon’ble Kerala high court decision supports the above grounds and both high courts have held that the amendment in section 200A is effective only from 01-06-2015 and therefore late filing fee u/s 234E cannot be levied for the period prior to 1-6-2015. Also, Hon’ble Gujrat High Court have decided the matter in favour of Department.
The Id. CIT(A) has erred and not considered the landmark judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of CIT vs. Vegetable Products ltd. 88 ITR 192(SC) & CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) wherein it has been decided by the Apex Court that if there is a cleavage of opinion between different Courts on an issue, in absence of jurisdictional court judgement the one in favour of the assessee needs to be followed. The Appellant therefore pleads that it is pertinent to go with Apex Court landmark judgements and an order in favour of assessee be passed.
GROUND NO 5: ITAT Case Law Pronouncing Judgement in Assesses’ favour in similar cases:
The Id. CIT (A) erred and not considered that There are numerous ITAT case laws, wherein it is clearly decided by the bench that intimation for fees for late filing of TDS statement filed u/s 234E before 01-Jul2015 is illegal, incorrect and invalid.
2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and submitted that the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed by first appellate authority for want of condonation of delay. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay was not intentional and there was reasonable cause for late filing of the appeal since the law was not settled at the relevant point of time and the assessee’s claim became tenable only due to subsequent favorable decisions rendered on the issue of levy of fees u/s 234E. Another argument was that the quarterly TDS returns were being filed by respective bank branches and TDS intimations were also sent to the bank branches which were not received by the head office of the assessee bank which led to delay in filing of the appeals. The Ld. AR filed written submissions supporting the case of the assessee and urged for condonation of delay before first appellate authority.
3. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, drawing attention to the impugned order, submitted that there was inordinate delay for which no justifiable reason has been adduced by the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeals of the assessee.
4. The quantum of delay as tabulated by Ld. AR, in each of the appeal, is as under: –
Comments are closed.