TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 1005
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the IT Act, 1961 does not cover the processing of the quarterly TDS statements for the purpose of charging fee u/s 234E of the IT Act, 1961. The levy of fee has been found as automatic process which goes with the default in filing the quarterly TDS statements and the number of days for which the default continues. The section 200A of the I.T. Act, 1961 empowers the A.O. to rectify any mistake or claim which is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In other words, if the fee has been prescribed for late filing of quarterly TDS statements and in the event, the said amount of fee has not been incorporated in the amount of tax so deducted and deposited while filing the relevant statements, the A.O. is very well within his power to rectify the same in accordance with the express provisions of law. Therefore, the contention of the appellant has not been found acceptable. 3.2 The appellant vide para 3 of the submissions has contended that in the instant case, the person responsible for paying the amount of fee is not specified because the same has not been brought under section 204 of the I.T. Act, 1961 which defines the "responsible person". In my opinion, the contention r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rued and unacceptable. The fee has to be levied from the due date of filing the quarterly TDS statement. If we go by the argument of the appellant, then the responsible persons may not deposit the collected amounts for years together and get away with the penal provision of charging fee as prescribed u/s 234E of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3.5 The intention of the legislature is twofold, one to get the compliance for deducting and depositing the taxes in terms of section 200(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and secondly to get the statement of same filed within the prescribed time frame so as to make useful analysis of the statement. Further, the argument of the appellant that for the period from the due date of deduction/deposit to the date of filing of the statements, the appellant has already paid penal interest u/s 200(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 has not been found acceptable because penal interest is compensatory in nature. It is levied to compensate the losxs of revenue in the form of interest on impugned taxes which are not deducted and deposited whereasthe levy of fee u/s 234E of the IT Act has been brought in as a deterrent against non-compliances of statutory provisions of the IT Act, 1961. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch not adjudicated. 3.9 The appellant vide para 6 of the submissions has stated that the impugned section 234E of the IT Act, 19612 does not render the appellant as assessee in default in cae of non-compliance. It is a matter of fact as brought out in detail above, the levy of fee u/s 234E of the IT Act, 1961 is an automatic, compulsory and mandatory process which does not require assessee to be treated in default first. The default will arise only if the taxes have not been deducted. This provision is basically a facilitator to comply with the terms of section 200(3) of I.T. Act, 1961. 3.10 Similarly, vide para 7 of the written submissions, the appellant has contended that the responsible person is an honorary agent of the department and he cannot be penalized for delay in the filing quarterly TDS statement. Moreover it has been stated that the levy if expondentially harsh, burdensome, deceitful, atrocious and obnoxious. Thje words and phrases as above were not required to be used against the simple provision brought in the act to ensure the compliance of filing the quarterly TDS statements. The filing of the statements in prescribed time has been made compulsory with specifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be; (3) The amount of fee referred to in subsection (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the Ist day of July, 2012." Thus, the fee u/s 234E shall have to be paid before delivering a statement in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 200. The assessee has not done so. It would be also relevant to mention that levy of fee u/s 234E has not been enumerated in section 246A of the Act where orders appealable before CIT(A) have been provided. The constitutional validity of these provisions was challenged. While deciding the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia and another vs. Union of India; 373 ITR 268 the Hon'ble Bombay ....