Tribunal Invalidates Fees Levy Pre-2015, Upholds Interest

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods before 01/06/2015 was not valid due to the procedural and prospective nature of the amendment to Section 200A. The Tribunal upheld the levy of interest but deemed the demand for fees under Section 234E as invalid and deleted. The appeal was decided in favor of the appellant on 10th December 2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of penalty by CIT(A) without considering the facts and circumstances.
2. Rejection of the appellant's genuine reason by CIT(A).
3. Allegation that CIT(A)'s order is based on surmises and conjectures.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Confirmation of Penalty by CIT(A) without Considering the Facts and Circumstances

The appellant contested the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, imposed for the late filing of quarterly electronic TDS returns. The CIT(A) upheld this penalty, referencing the constitutional validity of Section 234E as upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia V/s Union of India (373 ITR 268). However, the appellant relied on the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court's decision in Fatehraj Singhvi V/s Union of India (73 Taxmann.com 252), which held that fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to the amendment of Section 200A effective from 01/06/2015.

Issue 2: Rejection of the Appellant's Genuine Reason by CIT(A)

The appellant argued that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, was only effective from 01/06/2015. Therefore, no fees should be payable for any period before this date. This argument was supported by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi V/s Union of India and subsequent decisions. However, the CIT(A) rejected this argument, relying on the contrary decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Rajesh Kourani V/s Union of India (297 CTR 502), which upheld the levy of fees under Section 234E from its introduction on 01/07/2012.

Issue 3: Allegation that CIT(A)'s Order is Based on Surmises and Conjectures

The Tribunal noted that different High Courts had divergent views on this issue. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal, in Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, DOBI, BK V/s DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 78), followed the favorable decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. The Tribunal held that in cases of conflicting High Court decisions, the one favoring the assessee should be adopted, as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT V/s Vegetable Products Ltd. (1972 88 ITR 192).

The Tribunal found that the amendment to Section 200A was procedural and prospective. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to levy fees under Section 234E for periods before 01/06/2015. Consequently, the demand raised by charging fees under Section 234E was invalid and deleted.

Levy of Interest:

The Tribunal upheld the levy of interest of Rs. 1,485/- as it was mandatory and consequential in nature.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal to the extent that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to 01/06/2015 was not sustainable. However, the levy of interest was upheld. The appeal was pronounced in favor of the appellant on 10th December 2019.

---