Case Law Details
Hi Techno Control System Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
TDS Delay After 01.06.2015 Attracts Mandatory 234E Late Fee- Default for Q3 FY 2015–16 After Amendment is Valid- ITAT Mumbai
Mumbai ITAT has upheld levy of late fee u/s 234E r.w.s. 200A on delayed filing of TDS statements, holding that since the default pertained to a period after 01.06.2015, the provisions were applicable & levy was valid.
Late fee had been levied through intimations u/s 154 & u/s 200A/206CB dated 30.03.2017, amounting to ₹85,200 for delay in filing TDS statement for Q3 of FY 2015–16 (AY 2016–17).
When the matter came before Tribunal, it was noticed that the default related to the quarter 01.10.2015 to 31.12.2015. Tribunal observed that the enabling provision u/s 200A(1)(c), which allowed adjustment of late fee while processing TDS statements, came into force w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Therefore, levy of late fee on defaults after this date was within the ambit of law.
Assessee relied upon rulings of ITAT Delhi in Bathline India Pvt. Ltd. & Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. UOI, which had held that late fee u/s 234E was not leviable for periods prior to 01.06.2015. Tribunal distinguished these precedents, noting that they applied only to defaults prior to 01.06.2015, whereas in the present case, the default arose post-amendment.
In view of these facts, Tribunal upheld the order of CIT(A) confirming levy of late fee u/s 234E r.w.s. 200A of ₹85,200 & dismissed the appeal of Assessee as devoid of merit.
This ruling reinforces that late fee u/s 234E is legally enforceable for defaults committed after 01.06.2015, when statutory machinery provisions under s.200A(1)(c) were brought into effect, & assessees cannot take shelter under pre-amendment case laws for such later defaults.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The present appeal of assessee in ITA 1525/MUM/2022, in first round before the ITAT Mumbai was disposed of vide order dated 15/11/2022, however, the matter has been recalled, on the request of the revenue by filing of Miscellaneous Application, raising the ground that there is a mistake apparent on record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the act, that the impugned order u/s 272A(2)(K) dated 19/02/2020, challenged by the assessee before the Ld CIT(A) was not in existence, However the appeal of assessee was decided by the Ld CIT(A) and dismissed the same. In this regard a report is submitted by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward, Kalyan dated 18.04.2024 along with intimation u/s 154 dated 30/03/2017 and Intimation U/s 200A/206CB of the even date imposing late fee on the assessee, wherein the factual position has been brought on record that the ITO, Ward 1(5) Kalyan has not issued the so-called order u/s.272A(2)(K) dated 19/02/2020. For the sake of completeness report of A.O dated 18.04.2024 is extracted, hereunder:
—
—
2. The aforesaid facts as per report of AO, were confronted to the assessee, but was failed to rebut with any plausible explanation, accordingly, the MA filed by the revenue in MA No 530/Mum/2023 was allowed and the matter recalled for fresh adjudication.
3. On the present date of hearing, before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, which is noticed to be the assessee’s persistent conduct, in previous several hearings, therefore, the matter has been taken up for adjudication, based on material on record and submissions by the Ld. Sr DR.
4. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the facts on record, submissions by the revenue and jurisprudence relied upon by the assessee. Admittedly, the non-existence of impugned order u/s 272A(2)(K) dated 19/02/2020has been proved by the revenue and such fact could not be invalidated by the assessee. However, as per intimation u/s 154 and Intimation U/s 200A/206CB both dated 30/03/2017, copies of which are furnished by the revenue before us (extracted supra), it cannot be disputed that a late filing fee of Rs. 85,200/- has been imposed on the assessee for defaults pertaining to Q3 of the FY 2015-16 (AY 2016-17).
5. Now the issue before us is whether such late fee penalty imposed by the revenue u/s 234E r.w.s. 200A is sustainable or not in the facts and circumstances of the present case. On this issue assessee placed its reliance on the decision of ITAT Delhi in the case of Bathline India (P) Ltd in ITA No. 9336 to 9341/Del/2019, wherein the late filing fee u/s 234E r.w.s. 200A was deleted observing that the defaults involved therein pertains to a period prior to 01.06.2015, whereas the relevant provision u/s 200A(1)(c) has been enacted toforce w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Similar is the finding by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi& Ors Vs. UOI 2016 (9) TMI 964, that late filing fee on delay in filing of intimation of payment u/s 234E relating to period of deduction prior to 01.06.2015 was not maintainable.
6. Coming to facts of present case, the default committed by the assessee pertains to 3Q of FY 2015-16, i.e from 01.10.2015 to 31.12.2015, which falls after the effective date of applicability of the said provision i.e. w.e.f. 01.06.2015, consequently the cases relied by the assessee (supra) for periods prior to 01.06.2015, would not rescue the case of assessee.
7. In backdrop of the aforesaid observations, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the late fee-imposed u/s 234E r.w.s. 200A of the act, we thus uphold the same.
8. In result the appeal filed by the assessee, stands dismissed being bereft of merit and devoid of substance, in terms of our aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st August, 2025.
Author Bio
