TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 706
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led the appeal within the specified period and there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The assessee did not have any sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period specified U/s 249(2) of the Act. 4. None attended on behalf of the assessee but a written submissions has been filed and prayed to allow the appeal of the assessee. 5. On the contrary, the ld DR has supported the order of the lower authorities. 6. After hearing both the sides on this issue, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals for the reason that the assessee did not have sufficient cause for not presenting then appeal within the prescribed time U/s 249(2) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land & Acquisition vs. Mst Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) held as under: ''The Legislature has conferred power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression " sufficient cause " in section 5 is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for such period as may be prescribed and deliver or cause to be delivered to the prescribed income-tax authority31, or the person authorised by such authority, such statement in such form and verified in such manner and setting forth such particulars and within such time as may be prescribed.32 The provisions of Section 200(3) of the Act put an obligation on a person who has deducted a sum on or after 1st day of April, 2005 to prepare statements as prescribed and deliver or cause to be delivered to the prescribed income tax authority or the person authorized by such authority a statement in such form and verified in such manner and setting forth such particulars and within such time as may be prescribed. Rule 31A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short the Rules) provided for quarterly statement of deduction of tax as per Sub-Section (3) of Section 200 of the Act wherein every person being a person responsible for deduction of tax under Chapter XVIIB shall, in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 200, deliver or cause to deliver or cause to be delivered to the Director General of Income Tax Systems or the person authorized by the Director Gen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d setting forth such particulars and within such time as may be prescribed. *[Provided that the person may also deliver to the prescribed authority a correction statement for rectification of any mistake or to add, delete or update the information furnished in the statement delivered under this sub-section in such form and verified in such manner as may be specified by the authority.]" 10. On a perusal of section 200, it is clear that sub-section (3) thereof, and with which we are concerned, inter alia stipulates that any person responsible for deducting any sum by way of tax, on or after 1st April, 2005 in accordance with the foregoing provisions of Chapter XVII or, as the case may be, any person being an employer referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192 shall, after paying the tax so deducted to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time, prepare such statements for such period as may be prescribed and deliver or cause to be delivered to the prescribed income tax authority or the person authorised by such authority, such statements, in such form and verified in such manner and setting forth such particulars and within such time as may ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The fee prescribed is Rs. 200/- for every day during which the failure continues. Sub- section (2) further stipulates that the amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible as the case may be. 13. It is not in dispute that as per the existing provisions, a person responsible for deduction of tax (the deductor) is required to furnish periodical quarterly statements containing the details of deduction of tax made during the quarter, by the prescribed due date. Undoubtedly, delay in furnishing of TDS return/statements has a cascading effect. Under the Income Tax Act, there is an obligation on the Income Tax Department to process the income tax returns within the specified period from the date of filing. The Department cannot accurately process the return on whose behalf tax has been deducted (the deductee) until information of such deductions is furnished by the deductor within the prescribed time. The timely processing of returns is the bedrock of an efficient tax administration system. If the income tax returns, especially having refund claims, are not processed in a timely manner, then (i) a delay occurs in the gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Howrah Tax Payers' Association v. Government of West Bengal [2011] 5 CHN 430. Before the Calcutta High Court, the constitutional validity of imposition of a "late fee" under section 32(2) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 came up for consideration. After analysing the provisions of the Bengal Value Added Tax Act, the Calcutta High Court held as under: "10. In case of levying tax there is no quid pro quo between the Tax payer and the State. But element of quid pro quo is a must in case of imposing Fee. By virtue of impugned amendment, a dealer is entitled to get service indirectly from the authority upon payment of late fee. His irregular filing of return is regularised upon payment of late fee without being suffered from penal consequences which can not be categorised as nothing but special service. Thus, there exists quid pro quo in imposing late fee. 11. In this context it is pertinent to mention here that though a fee must be co-related to the services rendered, such relationship need not be mathematical one even casual co-relationship in all that is necessary. The view of the Apex Court in (2005) 2 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essary is that there should be a reasonable relationship between the levy of fee and the services rendered. It was observed that it was not necessary to establish that those who pay the fee must receive direct or special benefit or advantage of the services rendered for which the fee was being paid. It was held that if one who is liable to pay, receives general benefit from the authority levying the fee, the element of service required for collecting the fee is satisfied." (Emphasis supplied) 18. We are therefore clearly of the view that the fee sought to be levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not in the guise of a tax that is sought to be levied on the deductor. We also do not find the provisions of section 234E as being onerous on the ground that the section does not empower the Assessing Officer to condone the delay in late filing of the TDS return/statements, or that no appeal is provided for from an arbitrary order passed under section 234E. It must be noted that a right of appeal is not a matter of right but is a creature of the statute, and if the Legislature deems it fit not to provide a remedy of appeal, so be it. Even in such a scenario it is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi [2008] 4 SCC 720 and more particularly, paragraphs 46, 67, 68, 78, 79 and 80 thereof, which read thus: '46. In our opinion, there is one and only one ground for declaring an Act of the legislature (or a provision in the Act) to be invalid, and that is if it clearly violates some provision of the Constitution in so evident a manner as to leave no manner of doubt. This violation can, of course, be in different ways e.g. if a State Legislature makes a law which only Parliament can make under List I to the Seventh Schedule, in which case it will violate Article 246(1) of the Constitution, or the law violates some specific provision of the Constitution (other than the directive principles). But before declaring the statute to be unconstitutional, the court must be absolutely sure that there can be no manner of doubt that it violates a provision of the Constitution. If two views are possible, one making the statute constitutional and the other making it unconstitutional, the former view must always be preferred. Also, the court must make every effort to uphold the constitutional validity of a statute, even if that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... approach must be to uphold those rights and liberties, for which it may sometimes even have to declare a statute to be unconstitutional. 79. Some scholars regarded it a paradox in the judgments of Holmes, J. (who, as we have already stated above, was a disciple of Thayer) that while he urged tolerance and deference to legislative judgment in broad areas of law-making challenged as unconstitutional, he seemed willing to reverse the presumption of constitutionality when laws inhibiting civil liberties were before the court. 80. However, we find no paradox at all. As regards economic and other regulatory legislation judicial restraint must be observed by the court and greater latitude must be given to the legislature while adjudging the constitutionality of the statute because the court does not consist of economic or administrative experts. It has no expertise in these matters, and in this age of specialisation when policies have to be laid down with great care after consulting the specialists in the field, it will be wholly unwise for the court to encroach into the domain of the executive or legislative (sic legislature) and try to enforce its own views and percep....