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 rules no late fees pre-2015 for TDS filings, citing prospective amendment</h1> <h3>DIG Medical Composite Hospital Versus ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad</h3> DIG Medical Composite Hospital Versus ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad - TMI Issues Involved:1. Levy of late filing fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for TDS statements filed before and after 01.06.2015.2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to charge late filing fees prior to the amendment effective from 01.06.2015.3. Dismissal of appeals by the CIT (Appeals) due to substantial delay in filing without considering the merits.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Levy of Late Filing Fees under Section 234E:The core issue in these appeals was whether the late filing fees under Section 234E could be levied for TDS statements filed prior to and after the amendment effective from 01.06.2015. The Tribunal noted that the Legislature inserted Clause (c) to Section 200A(1) specifically effective from 01.06.2015, allowing the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees. The appellants argued that since the amendment was not retrospective, fees could not be charged for TDS statements filed before this date. The Tribunal agreed, referencing the decision in M/s. Rajyas Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, which held that the amendment was prospective, thus late filing fees under Section 234E could not be charged for periods before 01.06.2015.2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer:The Tribunal examined whether the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to levy late filing fees for defaults occurring before 01.06.2015. It was established that the original provisions of Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to charge late filing fees. This power was granted only from 01.06.2015. The Tribunal cited multiple precedents, including the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India, which clarified that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that for defaults prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to levy late fees.3. Dismissal of Appeals by CIT (Appeals):The Tribunal addressed the dismissal of appeals by the CIT (Appeals) due to substantial delay in filing, without considering the merits. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Anil Kumar Nehru Vs. ACIT, which allowed condonation of delays involving questions of law. It was highlighted that the CIT (Appeals) failed to address the merits, focusing solely on the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that legal questions regarding the levy of late fees should be examined, regardless of the delay in filing appeals.Conclusion:The Tribunal found that the amendment to Section 200A, effective from 01.06.2015, was prospective. Therefore, the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to levy late filing fees under Section 234E for defaults occurring before this date. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the facts and ensure the correct application of the law. Consequently, all 111 appeals were allowed, setting aside the late filing fees levied for periods prior to 01.06.2015. The Tribunal's decision was based on established legal precedents, ensuring a fair and just resolution of the issues.
TaxTMI 