TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 988
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the person responsible for making payment and filing return of TDS is liable to pay by way of fee a sum of Rs. 200/- per day during which the failure continues. Section 234E of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.7.2012. reads as follows:- "Fee for default in furnishing statements. 234E. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C, he shall be liable to pay, by way of fee, a sum of two hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues. (2) 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. (3) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (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- sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tem, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such statement; (ii) in respect of rate of deduction of tax at source, where such rate is not in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) For the purposes of processing of statements under sub-section (1), the Board may make a scheme for centralised processing of statements of tax deducted at source to expeditiously determine the tax payable by, or the refund due to, the deductor as required under the said sub-section." 4. Clause (c) to (f) of section 200A(1) was substituted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. The assessee contended that AO could levy fee u/s.234E of the Act while processing a return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act only by virtue of the provisions of Sec.200A(1)(c), (d) & (f) of the Act and those provisions came into force only from 1.6.2015 and therefore the authority issuing intimation u/s. 200A of the Act while processing return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act, could not levy fee u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of statement of TDS filed prior to 1.6.2015. The assessee, thus, challenged the validity of charging of fee u/s. 234E of the Act. The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 43800 46090 11206/2018-19 26Q-Q2 21/11/2016 28/02/2019 799 58560 25400 83960 11207/2018- 19 26Q-Q3 21/11/2016 28/02/2019 799 47090 7000 54090 Total 107940 215850 323790 2014-15 11231/2018- 19 24Q-Q2 01/11/2014 01/03/2019 1551 0 2400 2400 11214/2018- 19 26Q-02 28/12/2016 28/02/2019 762 440 2400 2840 10061/2018- 19 26Q-03 08/01/2017 28/02/2019 751 3340 1800 5140 Total 3780 6600 10380 From the aforesaid chart, the CIT(A) noticed that there was delay ranging from 751 days to 1971 days in filing appeals by the Assessee before him. 6. The Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filing appeals before CIT(A). The reasons assigned by the Assessee for delay in filing appeal was that the Assessee's business was small and all affairs had to be looked after by the Assessee as proprietor. Further the TDS compliance are web based and system driven and the Assessee was unable to long int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut of benevolence to the party seeking relief. It is true that an order condoning the delay in filing the appeal is a discretionary one but it is also pertinent to note that if discretion is exercised on the wrong principles by giving undue liberal approach which is not at all justice oriented, then the purpose of these provisions would be defeated and frustrated. Thus the delay is nothing but negligence and inaction of the appellant which could have been very well avoided by the exercise of due care and attention. There exists no sufficient or good reason for condoning inordinate delay in filing the present appeal. So there is no reason for condoning such delay of 1971 days in this case. Considering above the delay is not condoned." 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the CIT(A), the Assessee has filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Assessee reiterated stand of the Assessee as put forth before CIT(A). 9. The learned DR reiterated the stand of the revenue as reflected in the order of the CIT(A). 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned DR and also the grounds of appeal filed by the Assessee. The Assessee in th....