Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Attachment on Cash Credit of Assessee under GST Act: Delhi HC directs Bank to Comply Instructions to Vacate

Kam Air Co. Ltd. 1-84B, Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar-II New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC-(TDS) Ghaziabad
May, 07th 2019

Subject: DR and perused the material available on record.

Referred Sections:
Section 234E of the Act
Section 200(3) of the Act.
Section 271H(l)(a) of the Act,

Referred Cases / Judgments
Rajesh Kourani vs. Union of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137

                                       1                ITA Nos. 2322 & 2323/Del/2016


                  IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                       DELHI BENCH: `G' NEW DELHI

               BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT
                                     AND
                 MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    I.T.A. No. 2322/DEL/2016 (A.Y 2014-15)
                    I.T.A. No. 2323/DEL/2016 (A.Y 2014-15)

     Kam Air Co. Ltd.                         Vs   DCIT CPC-(TDS)
     1-84B, Ground Floor,                          Ghaziabad
     Lajpat Nagar-II
     New Delhi
     AADCK0451D                                    (RESPONDENT)
      (APPELLANT)

                 Appellant by       None
                 Respondent by      Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR

                  Date of Hearing              02.04.2019
                  Date of Pronouncement        07.05.2019

                                     ORDER
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

      These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order dated
25/01/2016 passed by CIT-41, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2014-15. As
relates to 3rd Quarter Form 26 Q for Financial Year 2013-14.

2.    The grounds of appeal are as under:- I.T.A. No. 2322/DEL/2016


      1. "That the appellate order as passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is
         bad in law and contrary to the fact of the case.


      2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts of the case by
         confirming the addition of Rs. 48,800/- on account of late filing of
         TDS Return.
                                    2                 ITA Nos. 2322 & 2323/Del/2016


   3. That the levy of fee under section 234E of the Act being unjust,
     arbitrary, discriminatory, without the authority of Law, is violative
     of Article 14, Article 19(l)(g), Article 265 and Article 300A of the
     Constitution of India, and causes irreparable loss to the appellant.







   4. That the charge of late filing under section 234E of the Act in the
     garb of a 'fee' is nothing but a shadow-penalty for the delay in the
     filing the statement under section 200(3) of the Act. Section
     271H(l)(a) of the Act, already seeks to levy a penalty for very
     same 'offence'. It is settled Law that an assessee cannot be
     penalized twice for the very same cause of action for the very
     same Assessment year. The levy of a 'fee1 under section 234E of
     the Act is therefore illegal and contrary to settled judicial
     precedents, and is therefore liable to be deleted.


   5. That without prejudice to the above submission, it is submitted
     that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant
     company was prevented by sufficient cause for delay in
     submitting the statement u/s 200(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
     and it is prayed that the fee imposed at Rs 48,800/- u/s 234E of
     Income Tax Act kindly be deleted.


   6. The appellants further craves leave to rely upon and produce
     additional documents and make further submissions, during the
     course of hearing."


I.T.A. No. 2323/DEL/2016


   "1.   That the appellate order as passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is
   bad in law and contrary to the fact of the case.
                                  3                 ITA Nos. 2322 & 2323/Del/2016


2.   That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts of the case by
confirming the addition of Rs. 88,760/- on account of late filing of TDS
Return.


3.   That the levy of fee under section 234E of the Act being unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory, without the authority of Law, is violative of
Article 14, Article 19(l)(g), Article 265 and Article 300A of the
Constitution of India, and causes irreparable loss to the appellant.


4.   That the charge of late filing under section 234E of the Act in the
garb of a 'fee' is nothing but a shadow-penalty for the delay in the
filing the statement under section 200(3) of the Act. Section 271H(l)(a)
of the Act, already seeks to levy a penalty for very same 'offence'. It is
settled Law that an asses see cannot be penalized twice for the very
same cause of action for the very same Assessment year. The levy of
a 'fee' under section 234E of the Act is therefore illegal and contrary
to settled judicial precedents, and is therefore liable to be deleted.


5.   That without prejudice to the above submission, it is submitted
that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant
company was prevented by sufficient cause for delay in submitting
the statement u/s 200(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and it is prayed
that the fee imposed at Rs 88,760/- u/s 234E of Income Tax Act
kindly be deleted.


6.   The appellants further craves leave to rely upon and produce
additional documents and make further submissions, during the
course of hearing."
                                       4               ITA Nos. 2322 & 2323/Del/2016




3.    At the time of hearing, the assessee has not appeared neither there was
any adjournment application despite notice has been served on 7/3/2019.
Therefore, we are taking up the matter from the records, it can be seen that the
issue involved in the present appeal is relating to levy of late filing fees u/s
234E of the Income Tax Act, for delay in filing of TDS statement as per
intimation u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act.      The CIT (A) while deciding the
appeal of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee

4.    The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the
levy of late filing fees u/s 234E has been properly levied by the Assessing
Officer.







5.    We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record.
We have gone through The submissions of the revenue and also that of the
submissions of the assessee before the CIT(A). The assessee before the CIT(A)
submitted that the amendment in Section 200(A) (1) from Clause (C) to (e) has
been made for the first time enabling the Assessing Officer              to make
adjustment by levying fees u/s 234E of the Act w.e.f. 1/6/2015. This aspect
was not dealt by the CIT(A) instead only relied upon the decisions which has
not dealt with the amended position of Section 200A and effective date of
amendment. It is pertinent to note that on this issue, there are contrary views
­ one by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Rajesh Kourani vs. Union of
India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 in favour of revenue, and the other of the
Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi (2016) 73
taxmann.com 252 in favour of the assessee. It is settled law that when two
views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee is to be adopted.
Therefore, following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of
Fatheraj Singhvi (supra), we hold that the levy of fee under Section 234E prior
to 1st June, 2015 was not sustainable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty order
                                           5               ITA Nos. 2322 & 2323/Del/2016


and allow the appeals of the assessee as both the appeals are on identical
facts.


6.       In result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on           07th    May, 2019.
     Sd/-                                                           Sd/-
(G. D. AGRAWAL)                                             (SUCHITRA KAMBLE)
VICE PRESIDENT                                               JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated:            07/05/2019
R. Naheed *

Copy forwarded to:

1.       Appellant
2.       Respondent
3.       CIT
4.       CIT(Appeals)
5.       DR: ITAT




                                                       ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                         ITAT NEW DELHI
                            6                    ITA Nos. 2322 & 2323/Del/2016



Date of dictation                                    02.04.2019

Date on which the typed draft is placed before the    02.04.2019
dictating Member

Date on which the typed draft is placed before the
Other Member

Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.
PS/PS

Date on which the fair order is placed before the
Dictating Member for pronouncement

Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. 07.05.2019
PS/PS

Date on which the final order is uploaded on the 07.05.2019
website of ITAT

Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk       07.05.2019

Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting