2023 (4) TMI 20 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upheld Levy of Fees for Late Filings | Valid Processing under Section 200A | Appeals Dismissed

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Versus. ITO (TDS) -2, Jabalpur. AND ITO (TDS) -2, Jabalpur

The Tribunal upheld the levy of fees under section 234E as the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, and the processing under section 200A is valid. The ... Levy of late filing fee u/s 234E - processing of statements filed by the assessee u/s. 200A - levy of fee u/s. 234E(1) in respect of statements delivered u/s. 200(3)/206C(3) after 01/7/2012 but before 01/6/2015 - HELD THAT:- For statements furnished after 31/5/2015, any delay relatable to the period after 30/6/2012, could be taken cognizance of. The statement/s u/s. 200(3) having been filed in the instant case/s after 01/06/2015, its processing u/s. 200A(1)(c), determining the amount payable u/s. 234E, admits of no two views (s.200A(1)(d/e/f, as they stand w.e.f. 01/6/2015). The delay taken cognizance of, and with reference to which fee is levied, is in the instant cases covered by the period falling after 31/5/2015. The controversy arising due to the difference in the view of the Hon’ble Courts does not attend the instant case, so that the levy in the instant case admits of no two views. The same cannot therefore be regarded as debatable from any stand point, even as we have clarified our view even in case of periods falling after 30/6/2012. We, accordingly, uphold the levy. Issues Involved:1. Competence of the Assessing Officer (AO) in levying the fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Applicability of section 200A for the determination and recovery of fees under section 234E.3. The retrospective application of section 234E and its machinery provision under section 200A.4. Judicial precedence and conflicting High Court decisions on the levy under section 234E.Detailed Analysis:1. Competence of the Assessing Officer (AO) in levying the fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The controversy in these appeals revolves around the competence of the AO in levying the fee under section 234E, which was introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, effective from 01/07/2012. The AO levied this fee during the processing of statements filed under section 200A of the Act, which came into effect on 01/06/2015. The mismatch in the dates of commencement of the charging provision (section 234E) and the machinery provision (section 200A) is central to the dispute. While some High Courts have upheld the levy, others have ruled it invalid in the absence of a machinery provision for determination and recovery before 01/06/2015.2. Applicability of section 200A for the determination and recovery of fees under section 234E:The Tribunal noted that section 200A is a machinery provision that facilitates the processing of statements filed under section 200(3) of the Act. The provision allows for the determination and recovery of fees under section 234E. The Tribunal observed that the levy under section 234E is applicable to statements filed on or after 01/07/2012, and the processing mechanism under section 200A, effective from 01/06/2015, is procedural and applies to statements filed after this date. The Tribunal emphasized that the levy is not retroactive and applies only to statements obliged to be filed on or after 01/07/2012.3. The retrospective application of section 234E and its machinery provision under section 200A:The Tribunal clarified that the levy under section 234E applies to statements filed after 01/07/2012, and the machinery provision under section 200A, effective from 01/06/2015, is procedural. The Tribunal found that the levy in the instant cases relates to correction statements filed after 01/06/2015, and thus, the issue of retrospectivity does not arise. The processing of these statements under section 200A is valid, and the fees levied are referable to the delay computed from 01/06/2015.4. Judicial precedence and conflicting High Court decisions on the levy under section 234E:The Tribunal acknowledged the conflicting decisions of various High Courts on the validity of the levy under section 234E. While some High Courts have upheld the levy, others have ruled it invalid in the absence of a machinery provision before 01/06/2015. The Tribunal noted that the majority view supports the applicability of the charge under section 234E for periods on or after 01/07/2012. The Tribunal emphasized that the machinery provisions should be construed to make the charge effective and upheld the levy in the instant cases.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the levy of fees under section 234E, as the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, and the processing under section 200A is valid. The appeals were dismissed, and the order was pronounced in open court on October 31, 2022.