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>Late-filing fee under s.234E read with s.200A upheld for Q3 FY2015-16 as effective from 1.6.2015; s.272A(2)(k) proof accepted</h1> <h3>Hi Techno Control System Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Mumbai</h3> ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s confirmation of a late-filing fee under s.234E read with s.200A for defaults in Q3 FY2015-16 (1.10.2015-31.12.2015), finding the ... Mistake apparent on record u/s 254(2) - non-existence of impugned order u/s 272A(2)(K) - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the non-existence of impugned order u/s 272A(2)(K) has been proved by the revenue and such fact could not be invalidated by the assessee. As per intimation u/s 154 and Intimation U/s 200A/206CB both dated 30/03/2017, copies of which are furnished by the revenue before us it cannot be disputed that a late filing fee has been imposed on the assessee for defaults pertaining to Q3 of the FY 2015-16 (AY 2016-17). Whether such late fee penalty imposed by the revenue u/s 234E r.w.s. 200A is sustainable or not ? - On this issue assessee placed its reliance on the decision of Bathline India (P) Ltd [2020 (9) TMI 147 - ITAT DELHI] wherein the late filing fee u/s 234E r.w.s. 200A was deleted observing that the defaults involved therein pertains to a period prior to 01.06.2015, whereas the relevant provision u/s 200A(1)(c) has been enacted to force w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Similar is the finding in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi& Ors [2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] that late filing fee on delay in filing of intimation of payment u/s 234E relating to period of deduction prior to 01.06.2015 was not maintainable. Coming to facts of present case, the default committed by the assessee pertains to 3Q of FY 2015-16, i.e from 01.10.2015 to 31.12.2015, which falls after the effective date of applicability of the said provision i.e. w.e.f. 01.06.2015, consequently the cases relied by the assessee (supra) for periods prior to 01.06.2015, would not rescue the case of assessee. No infirmity in the order of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the late fee-imposed u/s 234E r.w.s. 200A of the act, we thus uphold the same. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an appeal adjudicated earlier can be recalled by the Tribunal on satisfaction that there was a mistake apparent on record within the meaning of section 254(2) arising from non-existence of an impugned order relied upon in earlier proceedings. 2. Whether the late filing fee levied under section 234E read with section 200A (or r.w.s. 200A/206CB as recorded) is sustainable where the default relates to tax deducted at source for the third quarter of FY 2015-16 (period 01.10.2015 to 31.12.2015), i.e. after the statutory effective date 01.06.2015. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - RECALL OF APPEAL FOR MISTAKE APPARENT (Issue 1) Legal framework: Section 254(2) permits recall of an order by the Tribunal where a mistake apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated. Precedent Treatment: The judgment applies the established principle that a recalled adjudication is permissible when a material factual error (here, the non-existence of an impugned order relied upon by the appellant before the lower authority) is shown to affect the earlier disposal; no contrary precedent was adopted or overruled in the reasoning. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal relied on the report of the assessing officer confirming that the order said to have been issued under section 272A(2)(k) on 19/02/2020 did not, in fact, exist. The assessee failed to rebut that factual position. Because the earlier dismissal by the appellate authority proceeded on the basis of an order that was not in existence, the Tribunal found a mistake apparent on the face of the record that warranted recall and fresh adjudication. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A recalled adjudication is justified under section 254(2) where a core factual/documentary basis for earlier disposal is demonstrably non-existent and the party relying on that basis cannot invalidate the showing to the contrary. Obiter - No extended dicta about limits of recall were laid down beyond application to the facts. Conclusion: The Tribunal correctly allowed recall of the earlier order and proceeded to fresh adjudication because the non-existence of the impugned order was established and unrebutted by the assessee. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - SUSTAINABILITY OF LATE FEE UNDER SECTION 234E READ WITH SECTION 200A (Issue 2) Legal framework: Section 234E prescribes a fee for delayed furnishing of challans/returns in the TDS/TCS context; section 200A deals with the statement/intimation requirements relating to tax deducted/collected. The effective applicability of the relevant provision(s) from 01.06.2015 is a determinative temporal threshold for imposition of the late fee in controversy. Precedent Treatment (followed/distinguished): The assessee relied on prior decisions that disallowed section 234E levies where the defaults related to periods prior to 01.06.2015. The Tribunal distinguished those authorities because the defaults in the present case arose for the third quarter of FY 2015-16 (01.10.2015-31.12.2015), which is after the statutory effective date of 01.06.2015. No precedent was followed to negate the levy; instead, earlier decisions were confined to their temporal facts and thus held inapplicable. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted the revenue's documentary material (intimation under section 154 and intimation under sections 200A/206CB) showing imposition of a late filing fee of Rs. 85,200 for defaults in Q3 FY 2015-16. Given that the defaults occurred after 01.06.2015, the legislative scheme permitting imposition of the late fee under section 234E read with section 200A applied. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee's cited authorities were factually distinguishable and therefore did not preclude upholding the fee in the present temporal context. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where the default in furnishing intimation/statement under section 200A relates to a period on or after the statutory effective date (01.06.2015), the late filing fee under section 234E read with section 200A is sustainable. Obiter - Observations criticizing or characterizing the assessee's procedural conduct (non-appearance at hearings) are incidental and not essential to the legal holding on the levy's validity. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the late filing fee imposed under section 234E read with section 200A for defaults in Q3 FY 2015-16 and affirmed the appellate authority's confirmation of the penalty; the appeal was dismissed on merits. INTERRELATION OF ISSUES AND FINAL DETERMINATIONS 1. The recall under section 254(2) and the fresh adjudication were warranted because the earlier adjudication had proceeded on an order that was non-existent; that factual correction permitted re-examination of the substantive levy issue (Issue 2). 2. On substantive law, the decisive temporal application of sections 200A and 234E governed the outcome: defaults occurring after 01.06.2015 fall within the ambit of the late filing fee, distinguishing authorities that addressed pre-01.06.2015 defaults. 3. The assessee's failure to rebut the AO's factual report and persistent non-appearance before the Tribunal were noted but the legal conclusions on recall and on the validity of the late fee rest on documentary proof and statutory timing rather than sanctions for non-appearance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
