2022 (7) TMI 1397 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal favors assessee on late filing fee and appeal delay issues

Katepally Venkata Subramanyam Versus ITO (TDS), Ward-1 Aaykar bhavan, N.R. Pet Kurnool

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on all three issues. It held that the late filing fee under Section 234E before 01.06.2015 was not sustainable ... Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - Late filing fee u/s. 234E - levy late filing fee prior to 01.06.2015 - intimation u/s 200A - Diversified views - HELD THAT:- ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Rose Rock Real Estate India Pvt. Ltd [2021 (9) TMI 621 - ITAT MUMBAI] and Srinivasamurthy Kolhially Yalakaiah [2020 (6) TMI 700 - ITAT BANGALORE] as held the issue is debatable then the same takes the adjustment out of the jurisdiction of CPC Bangalore. As debatable issues cannot be decided under computerized adjustment. Hence to conclude since it has been held by higher courts that prior to enabling provision to levy interest under section 234E, the interest for earlier period return due cannot be upheld we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and decide the issue in favour of assessee Thus we hereby allow the appeals of the assessee. Issues involved:1. Validity of late filing fee under Section 234E prior to 01.06.2015.2. Consideration of delay in filing appeal from the date of original intimation order or rectification order.3. Applicability of decisions from various Tribunals and High Courts on the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E.Issue 1: Validity of late filing fee under Section 234E prior to 01.06.2015The appellant challenged the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E for a period before 01.06.2015, arguing that it was not maintainable based on relevant legal provisions. The appellant cited decisions such as Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors Vs. Union of India, Olari Little Flower Kuries Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India & Others, Jiji Varghese Vs. ITO & Others, and State Bank of India Vs. ITO to support their contention that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision for raising demands under Section 234E. The Tribunal, considering these precedents, held that the late fee levied under Section 234E for the period before 01.06.2015 was not sustainable.Issue 2: Consideration of delay in filing appealThe appellant contended that the delay in filing the appeal should be calculated from the date of the rectification order, not the original intimation order. The Tribunal analyzed the timing of the rectification orders and the relevant legal provisions. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument and held that the delay in filing the appeal should be considered from the date of the rectification order, not the original intimation order, thereby declaring the impugned order as bad in law and requiring it to be vacated.Issue 3: Applicability of decisions from various Tribunals and High CourtsThe Tribunal considered various decisions from different Tribunals and High Courts regarding the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E. Citing decisions from the ITAT Mumbai Bench and ITAT Bangalore Bench, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, following the precedents set by these decisions. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the interpretations and conclusions drawn in these judgments, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeals.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on all three issues, emphasizing the invalidity of the late filing fee under Section 234E prior to 01.06.2015, the calculation of the delay in filing appeal from the rectification order date, and the significance of decisions from various Tribunals and High Courts in shaping the outcome of the case.