Tribunal upholds fees for late tax filings, emphasizes compliance with penalty provisions

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals challenging the levy of fees under section 234E for delays in furnishing tax deduction statements for various quarters of assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. Despite the appellant's arguments regarding the legality and validity of the fees, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The High Court's judgment clarified the provisions related to penalties and fees for late filing, emphasizing the importance of compliance with tax deduction requirements. The Tribunal found no merit in delaying the decision based on the possibility of a future favorable verdict and pronounced its decision on June 8, 2018.

---

---

Issues:
Appeals against CIT(A) order upholding levy of fees under section 234E for delay in furnishing tax deduction statement.

Analysis:
1. The appeals challenged the order upholding the levy of fees under section 234E for various quarters of assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. The grievances included the legality of the order, consideration of submissions, and the validity of the fees levied.

2. The CIT(A) was criticized for not fully considering the appellant's submissions and evidence regarding the fees levied under section 234E. It was argued that the provisions did not allow for fees before a certain date.

3. The CIT(A) was accused of errors in confirming the validity of the fees under section 234E and failing to recognize that the provisions did not permit fees before a specific date. The legal and factual errors in the decision were highlighted.

4. Despite the absence of representation by the assessee, the Departmental Representative pointed out that the issue was settled by a judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. The judgment clarified the provisions related to penalties and fees for late filing of statements.

5. The High Court's judgment emphasized the distinction between charging and machinery provisions in the Income-tax Act. It explained the evolution of the relevant sections and the introduction of fees for late filing to ensure compliance with tax deduction requirements.

6. The assessee acknowledged that the matter was covered by the High Court's judgment but sought to keep the issue pending for a potential reversal by a higher judicial forum. However, the Tribunal found no merit in delaying the decision based on the possibility of a future favorable verdict.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, citing the clear coverage of the issue by the High Court's judgment and the lack of merit in the appeals. The decision was made on June 8, 2018, and pronounced in open court.

---