Appeals Allowed: Late Filing Fees for TDS Returns Deleted pre-Amendment

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur allowed two appeals challenging late filing fees under section 234E for TDS returns for the third quarter of the financial year 2014-15. The Tribunal held that the fees were improperly imposed by the Assessing Officer before the relevant amendment, effective from 1.6.2015. Relying on legal interpretations and a prior decision, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer lacked the authority to levy such fees before the amendment. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the fees in both cases, ruling in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to late filing fees under section 234E for TDS returns for F.Y. 2014-15.

Analysis:
In the present case, the appellant challenged the sustenance of late filing fees charged by the Assessing Officer under section 234E while processing the TDS returns for the third quarter of the financial year 2014-15. The appellant argued that the fees were charged mechanically without proper application of mind, natural justice, or equity. It was contended that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to make such adjustments prior to the amendment brought by The Finance Act, 2015, effective from 1.6.2015. The appellant cited a previous decision in the case of Trimurty Builcon P ltd vs DCIT to support the argument that the fee charged was legally unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer, before 1.6.2015, lacked the authority to levy fees under section 234E while processing TDS statements. Relying on their previous decision and legal interpretations, the Tribunal held that the demand for fees under section 234E was not valid and directed the deletion of the fees in both cases.

Judgment Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur heard two appeals filed by the assessee challenging the late filing fees charged by the Assessing Officer under section 234E for TDS returns for the third quarter of the financial year 2014-15. The appellant argued that the fees were imposed without proper application of mind and were legally unsustainable before the amendment effective from 1.6.2015. Citing a previous decision, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked the authority to levy fees under section 234E before the amendment. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the fees in both cases, allowing the appeals of the assessee.

---