Levy of late fee under Section 234E applies only from 01-06-2015; fees prior to that period set aside HC held that the levy of late fee under section 234E could be imposed only from 01-06-2015, the amendment being prospective, and therefore authorities ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Levy of late fee under Section 234E applies only from 01-06-2015; fees prior to that period set aside
HC held that the levy of late fee under section 234E could be imposed only from 01-06-2015, the amendment being prospective, and therefore authorities lacked jurisdiction to demand such fees for the period 2012-13 to 31-05-2015. Challenges alleging total lack of jurisdiction could not be defeated by delay; extant intimations requiring late fee under section 234E for the pre-1-June-2015 period were quashed and the writ petition allowed to that extent.
Issues: Late fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for delayed filing of TDS returns; Applicability of section 200A and its amendment; Jurisdiction to levy late fee; Effect of delay in challenging the levy; Interpretation of relevant statutory provisions.
Analysis: The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, deducted TDS and remitted the same to the Income Tax Department. However, a delay occurred in filing the statement of returns regarding the TDS remittance. The second respondent levied late fee under section 234E of the Act due to the delay in filing the statement. The petitioner was called upon to pay the late filing fee for the periods from 2012-13 to 2014-15 based on the provisions of section 234E, which imposes a fee for default in furnishing statements.
The petitioner argued that since section 234E was introduced in 2012, and section 200A was amended in 2015, they cannot be held liable for the late fee before the amendment to section 200A. The respondents contended that the demands for late filing fee were raised through appealable orders from 2013 to 2016, which the petitioner did not challenge, making the demands final. They argued against granting relief due to delay, citing legal precedents where delay defeated the claim.
After hearing both parties, the court considered the statutory provisions of section 234E and section 200A, along with the implications of the amendment. Referring to a previous judgment, the court held that the amendment to section 200A would be prospective from 1st June 2015, making the jurisdiction to levy late fee under section 234E effective only from that date. The court dismissed the respondents' objections based on delay, stating that delay cannot be used to deny relief when a total lack of jurisdiction is alleged.
The court distinguished the cited legal precedents, emphasizing that they did not involve a total lack of jurisdiction or authority like in the present case. Ultimately, the court found the demands for late fee in the intimations from 2012-13 to 2014-15 to be lacking in authority and legally unsustainable. Consequently, the court quashed the intimations demanding late fee for the specified period, allowing the writ petition in favor of the petitioner.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI OCR ✕
of 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
