Tribunal rules in favor of assessee on appeal, rejects late filing fees pre-2015

The Tribunal allowed all appeals filed by the assessee, dismissing the CIT(A)'s order on the issue of delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A). It held that late filing fees under section 234E could not be charged for periods before 01.06.2015, following the Karnataka High Court's interpretation. Consequently, interest under section 220(2) was also not justified. The decision highlighted the significance of procedural accuracy and the prospective application of statutory changes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A)
2. Levy of late filing fee under section 234E
3. Interest under section 220(2)

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Delay in Filing Appeals Before the CIT(A)

The assessee argued that the appeals were filed on time against the order passed under section 154, not under section 200A as mistakenly noted. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals citing delays ranging from 1938 to 2008 days, based on the original order dated 11th November 2013. However, the rectification order under section 154 was dated 11th February 2019, and the appeals were filed on 2nd March 2019, within the due date of 11th March 2019. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument and noted that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts properly, leading to an incorrect dismissal of the appeals on account of delay. The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed on time and there was no delay, thus dismissing the CIT(A)'s order on this issue.

Issue 2: Levy of Late Filing Fee Under Section 234E

The core issue was whether the late filing fee under section 234E could be levied for TDS statements filed before 01.06.2015. The Tribunal referred to multiple cases, including the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi vs. UOI and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Rajesh Kourani vs. UOI. The Karnataka High Court held that the amendment to section 200A(1) was prospective, effective from 01.06.2015, and thus, late filing fees under section 234E could not be charged for periods before this date. The Tribunal followed this view, noting that in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Supreme Court's principle in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd. should be applied, favoring the assessee in case of conflicting decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal held that no late filing fee under section 234E could be levied for defaults prior to 01.06.2015.

Issue 3: Interest Under Section 220(2)

The Tribunal observed that since the levy of late filing fee under section 234E was not justified for the period before 01.06.2015, the consequent interest under section 220(2) also did not survive. This was consistent with the principle that if the primary demand is invalid, any consequential interest cannot be sustained.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed all the appeals filed by the assessee, quashing the levy of late filing fees under section 234E and the interest under section 220(2), based on the finding that the appeals were filed on time and the late filing fee could not be levied for periods before 01.06.2015. The decision emphasized the importance of procedural correctness and the prospective application of statutory amendments.

---