Case Law Details
Shimas Network Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Conclusion: Fee u/s. 234E for filing TDS returns belatedly could not be levied prior to 01/06/2015 as there was no machinery provision of sec. 200A .
Held: Assessee had filed the TDS returns belatedly which was accepted by TIN. Subsequently ITO Centralized Processing Call-TDS levied late fee of Rs. 64,480/- for delay as per intimation under section 200 A issued on 31/10/2018. Aggrieved by the orders of ITO, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) contending that prior to 1st June, 2015, there was no enabling provision for payment and levy of fee u/s 234E. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the ITO by relying on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani Vs. Union of India (2017) 85 taxmann.com 13,7 wherein the Hon’ble High Court had held that sec. 234E was a charging provision creating a charge for levying fee for certain defaults in filing statements and the fee would be levied even without a regulatory provision being found in sec. 200A for computation of fees. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal. It was held that the intimation given in purported exercise of power under Section 200A was in respect of fees under Section 234E for the period prior to 1.6.2015. Further, the amendment made under Section 200A which had come into effect on 1.6.2015 was held to be having a prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for the fee under Section 234E could be made for the TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. In light of the case of Shri Fatheraj Singhvi, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and held that the fee u/s. 234E could not be levied without machinery provision of sec. 200A prior to 01/06/2015.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 31.3.2022 for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 with the following grounds of appeal:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
