Tribunal dismisses Revenue's appeals, upholds CIT(A)'s directions. Late fees under section 234E deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s directions for verification and rectification. It ruled that appeals against intimation under section 200A issued before 01.07.2010 were not maintainable under section 246A. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the late fee under section 234E could not be levied through intimation under section 200A and directed the deletion of such fees. The appeals by the appellant deductors were allowed for the deletion of fees under section 234E.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Acceptance of new evidence by CIT(A) without allowing reasonable opportunity to AO.
2. Direction by CIT(A) to AO to call for necessary documents and revise the order.
3. Maintainability of appeal against intimation issued under section 200A of the Act.
4. Levy of late fee under section 234E while processing TDS statements.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Acceptance of New Evidence by CIT(A) Without Allowing Reasonable Opportunity to AO:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred by accepting new evidence from the deductor without giving a reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer (AO) as required by Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962. The CIT(A) accepted the deductor's claim that taxes were deducted and paid on time, and any short deduction/non-payment was due to a mismatch. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the claim and revise the order accordingly, including charging interest on any late deposit.

2. Direction by CIT(A) to AO to Call for Necessary Documents and Revise the Order:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to call for necessary documents and revise the order because the processing of TDS statements is centralized at CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad. The AO has no power to revise the order, and the only remedy for the deductor is to file a correction statement online. The CIT(A) was criticized for not understanding the rectification process laid down by CPC (TDS) and for issuing directions that were not executable at the AO's end.

3. Maintainability of Appeal Against Intimation Issued Under Section 200A of the Act:
The Tribunal noted that no appeal under section 246A of the Income-tax Act was maintainable before the CIT(A) against the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act prior to 01.07.2010. This was based on the precedent set by the Tribunal in the case of ITO Ward 50(4) Vs. Maruti Insurance Agency Network Ltd and others. Since the intimation in the case at hand was issued on 09/08/2011, the Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable under section 246A. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, directing the AO to decide the issue afresh in accordance with the law after providing due opportunity to the assessee.

4. Levy of Late Fee Under Section 234E While Processing TDS Statements:
The issue was whether the late fee for delay in filing TDS returns under section 234E can be raised while processing the TDS statement through intimation under section 200A. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Sibia Healthcare (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, which held that the adjustment for the levy of fees under section 234E was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments under section 200A. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had exceeded his jurisdiction by including the penalty for late filing of TDS returns in the intimation. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the intimations to the extent of the levy of fees under section 234E and deleted the fees. However, it clarified that the AO could pass a separate order for the levy of penalty under section 234E if the limitation period had not expired.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and upheld the CIT(A)'s directions for verification and rectification. The Tribunal also ruled that appeals against intimation under section 200A issued before 01.07.2010 were not maintainable under section 246A. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the late fee under section 234E could not be levied through intimation under section 200A and directed the deletion of such fees. The appeals filed by the appellant deductors were allowed to the extent of the deletion of fees under section 234E.

---