Tribunal rules Assessing Officer lacked authority to levy fees pre-01.06.2015

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the Assessing Officer lacked authority to levy fees under section 234E for periods before 01.06.2015. It found intimations issued under section 200A for such periods unsustainable. The demands raised through section 234E fees were deleted, and the appeals succeeded on procedural and substantive grounds. The decision was rendered on 1st March 2017.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Legality of late fee levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act.
3. Authority of the Assessing Officer to levy fees under section 234E prior to the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) by the Finance Act, 2015.
4. Maintainability of appeals against intimations issued under section 200A.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The appellants filed petitions for condonation of a 17-day delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The Tribunal accepted the explanations provided by the assessees and condoned the delay, admitting the appeals for adjudication.

2. Legality of Late Fee Levied under Section 234E:
The primary issue in these appeals was the legality of the late fee levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act for defaults in furnishing TDS statements before the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) by the Finance Act, 2015, effective from 01.06.2015. The assessees contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not have the authority to levy such fees for periods prior to the amendment. The Tribunal noted that section 234E, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, imposes a fee for late filing of TDS statements, but the power to levy this fee while processing TDS returns was only granted to the AO by the amendment to section 200A(1)(c), effective from 01.06.2015.

3. Authority of the Assessing Officer to Levy Fees under Section 234E Prior to the Amendment:
The Tribunal relied on the decision of the ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Gajanan Constructions and others, which held that the AO was not empowered to levy fees under section 234E while processing TDS statements for periods prior to 01.06.2015. The Tribunal reasoned that the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) was prospective in nature, and thus, the AO could not levy such fees for defaults occurring before the amendment date.

4. Maintainability of Appeals Against Intimations Issued Under Section 200A:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether appeals against intimations issued under section 200A are maintainable. It referred to the Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 2015, which clarified that such intimations are subject to rectification under section 154, appealable under section 246A, and deemed as notices of payment under section 156. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) erred in holding that no appeal is maintainable against such intimations. It held that the demand raised by charging fees under section 234E is appealable and reversed the CIT(A)'s findings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the AO was not empowered to levy fees under section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015, and the intimations issued under section 200A for such periods were unsustainable. The demands raised by charging fees under section 234E were deleted, and the appeals were allowed on both the procedural and substantive grounds. The order was pronounced in the open court on 1st March 2017.

---