Deductor Appeals Tax Demand Over Late E-TDS Filing, ITAT Rules in Favor

The appellant, a deductor of tax, filed an appeal against a demand of Rs. 9,000 under section 234E for late filing of the E-TDS statement. The Assessing Officer (AO) did not pass a separate order u/s. 234E within the specified time, leading to the invalidity of the intimation sent to the appellant u/s. 200A. The ITAT concurred with the appellant's submissions, clarifying the interpretation of sections 200A and 234E and setting aside the impugned order, ultimately allowing the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing E-TDS statement leading to a demand of fee u/s. 234E.
2. Interpretation of section 200A and 234E regarding the levy of fees for late filing.

Issue 1 - Delay in filing E-TDS statement and demand of fee u/s. 234E:
The appellant, a deductor of tax, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding a demand of Rs. 9,000 under section 234E for late filing of the E-TDS statement. The appellant paid the tax deducted at source within the due date but filed the E-TDS statement with a delay of 45 days. The Assessing Officer (AO) raised the demand of Rs. 9,000 under section 234E. The appellant contended that the order passed by the AO was barred by limitation as there was no enabling provision in section 200A for levy of fees u/s. 234E before 01.06.2015. The AO did not pass a separate order u/s. 234E independently within the specified time, leading to the invalidity of the intimation sent to the appellant u/s. 200A.

Issue 2 - Interpretation of section 200A and 234E regarding the levy of fees for late filing:
The appellant argued that section 200A(1)(C), inserted by the Finance Act, 2015, restricted the time within which intimation can be sent u/s. 200A. The appellant cited a judgment of ITAT, A Bench, Chennai, which held that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no provision in section 200A for the levy of fees u/s. 234E while processing the E-TDS statement. The ITAT held that the AO could pass a separate order u/s. 234E for levying the fee, provided the limitation did not expire. In this case, since the AO did not pass a separate order u/s. 234E within the specified time, the intimation sent to the appellant u/s. 200A was deemed invalid. The ITAT concurred with the appellant's submissions and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of sections 200A and 234E concerning the levy of fees for late filing of E-TDS statements and emphasizes the importance of complying with statutory timelines and provisions to avoid invalidity of orders.

---