TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds legality of late fee recovery under Income Tax Act pre-2015 amendment</h1> <h3>Jagdish Prasad Bugalia Versus Income Tax Officer, TDS-3, Jaipur</h3> Jagdish Prasad Bugalia Versus Income Tax Officer, TDS-3, Jaipur - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of recovery of late fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the amendment to Section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Recovery of Late Fees under Section 234E before the Amendment to Section 200A:The primary issue in this case revolves around whether the recovery of late fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid when such fees were not deposited before filing the statement of TDS, especially considering the amendment to Section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015, which came into effect from June 1, 2015.Arguments by the Assessee:The assessee contended that prior to June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act for making adjustments concerning the statement filed by the assessee with regard to tax deducted at source by levying fee under Section 234E. The argument was based on the premise that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2015, which enabled the Assessing Officer (AO) to levy such fees, was applicable only from June 1, 2015, and not before.Findings by the CIT(A):The CIT(A) examined the provisions of Section 200A as they stood before and after the amendment, as well as the provisions of Section 234E. The CIT(A) noted that the appellant relied on various case laws and arguments to support the contention that prior to June 1, 2015, there was no provision for levying fees under Section 234E. However, the CIT(A) referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of M/s Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan, which held that even prior to the amendments, the imposition of fees under Section 234E was not illegal. The Rajasthan High Court emphasized the importance of timely processing of returns for an efficient tax administration system and concluded that Section 234E was compensatory in nature rather than punitive.Judgment by the Tribunal:The Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(A) and referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in similar cases. The Rajasthan High Court in Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan and the Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia upheld the constitutional validity of Section 234E and emphasized that the fee was compensatory for the additional burden on the tax department due to the late filing of TDS statements. Both courts concluded that the imposition of fees under Section 234E was valid even before the amendment to Section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015.The Tribunal found no valid reason or justification to interfere with the compensatory fees imposed for late filing of TDS returns and thus confirmed the demand raised by the AO for late filing fees under Section 234E.Conclusion:The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was upheld, confirming the legality of the recovery of late fees under Section 234E for the period before the amendment to Section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015.Order Pronounced:The order was pronounced in the open court on February 15, 2018.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
