TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ters in Form No.24Q/26Q for FYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 (AYs 2013-14 to 2014-15). The statement was processed by CPC TDS, Bengaluru. There was a delay in filing the above TDS statement and therefore the AO by intimation u/s. 200A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] levied late fee u/s. 234E of the Act, in appeals pertaining to filing of Form No.24Q in Q-2, Q-3 & Q-4 and filing of Form No.26Q in Q-4 of AY 2013-14 and filing of Form No.24Q for Q-1 relating to AY 2014-14. In respect of filing of Form No.26Q, Q-1 for AY 2014-15 and Q-2 & Q-3 for AY 2013-14, the levy of late fee u/s.234E was passed u/s.200A read with Sec.154 of the Act The details of the late fee so levied was as follows:- FY Form no. Q1 (Rs.) Q2 (Rs.) Q3 (Rs.) Q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 200 or the proviso to subsection (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 1st day of July, 2012." 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee's contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions of section 234E of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.7.2012. Section 200A of the Act is a provision which deals with how a return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act has to be processed and it reads as follows:- Processing of statements of tax deducted at source. 200A. (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source or a correction stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e purposes of this sub-section, "an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the statement" shall mean a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the statement- (i) of an item, 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 subsection." 5. Clause (c) to (f) of section 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2013 13.03.2019 1921 days 14.06.2014 13.03.2019 1703 days 29.08.2016 13.03.2019 895 days 14.11.2013 13.03.2019 1916 days 14.11.2013 14.03.2019 1917 days 21.08.2014 14.03.2019 1636 days 2013-14 10.11.2013 13.03.2019 1919 days 28.11.2013 13.03.2019 1902 days 7. 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 there were many opposing judgments on whether late filing fee can be levied u/s.234E or not viz., that of the Amritsar Bench of ITAT in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.90/Asr/2015 order dated 9.6.2015 holding that without e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal against the orders u/s.200A of the Act. The Assessee submitted that he was not guilty of negligence and the delay was due to bonafide reasons set out above. The Assessee also placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandramani (TS 5109-SC-1996-O) wherein it was held that the expression "sufficient cause" should be considered with pragmatism and in a justice oriented approach rather than technically and CMJ Foundation Vs. Principal CIT (TS 6571-ITAT-2019(Gauhati)-O) wherein it was held that bonafide belief that appeal should not be filed is sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Assessee also relied on the decision in the case of Collector of land acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal which is only technical should be condoned. 10. The learned DR reiterated the stand of the revenue as reflected in the order of the CIT(A). 11. We have considered the submissions of the learned DR and also the grounds of appeal filed by the Assessee. An intimation u/s.200A of the Act became an appealable order u/s.246A of the Act, only consequent to amendment by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Prior to the said date an intimation u/s.200A was not appealable. At the outset, we observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mst. Katiji (supra), has explained the principles that need to be kept in mind while considering an application for condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court has emphasized that substantial ju....