Tribunal Overturns Fees Levy Pre-2015

The Tribunal allowed all 16 appeals, ruling that the levy of fees under section 234E through intimation under section 200A was not permissible for periods before 01-06-2015. The lower authorities' orders were overturned, and the fees charged were removed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the levy of fees under section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, through an intimation under section 200A, is permissible for a period prior to 01-06-2015.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Levy of Fees under Section 234E Prior to 01-06-2015:

At the outset, the Tribunal noted that the facts and issues in all 16 appeals were identical and similar, thus they were heard together and disposed of by a consolidated order. The common grievance across all appeals was the Department's levy of fees under section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, through an intimation under section 200A for periods prior to 01-06-2015. The appellants argued that such a levy was not permissible as per the adjustments contemplated under section 200A before the specified date.

The Tribunal took up ITA No. 172/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2013-14 as the lead case to discuss the facts. The assessee had filed TDS returns for F.Y. 2012-13 with delays ranging from 66 to 278 days. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Centralized Processing Cell TDS) levied a late fee of Rs. 2,12,000 for the delays.

The assessee contended that the delays were due to severe cash flow problems and that all due amounts, including interest, were paid before filing the TDS returns. The Tribunal referenced a decision by the Co-ordinate Bench Pune in the case of Marshall Breeders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT, which held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge late fees under section 234E by way of intimation issued under section 200A for defaults prior to 01-06-2015.

The Tribunal examined the case records and submissions, confirming that the late fees had indeed been charged prior to 01-06-2015. They cited multiple decisions, including those from the Raipur Bench of the Tribunal and the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Limited Vs. DCIT, which consistently held that such levies were beyond the scope of permissible adjustments under section 200A before the amendment effective from 01-06-2015.

The Tribunal reiterated that section 200A, as it stood prior to the amendment, did not permit adjustments for fees under section 234E. They concluded that the intimation under section 200A raising a demand for fees under section 234E was unsustainable in law. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and deleted the fees levied under section 234E.

The same rationale and ruling were applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals (ITA Nos. 173, 174, 226 to 238/PUN/2021), resulting in all appeals being allowed.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed all 16 appeals, holding that the levy of fees under section 234E through intimation under section 200A was not permissible for periods prior to 01-06-2015. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the fees levied were deleted.

---