TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1019
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there is a delay in filing statement of TDS within the prescribed time then 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 subsection (3) of section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... w.r.t. order under section 200A, please furnish detailed reasons for such delay. Please also file copy of application filed by you under section 154 before the AO, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad. Also furnish copy of Justification Report. Any other submission, if any, apart from response already filed by you." 7. According to the CIT(A), the assessee despite service of notice through email did not file any response. The CIT(A) therefore proceeded to hold as follows: (i) According to the CIT(A), an application under section 154 of the Act can be filed only to rectify a mistake apparent from the record which means the mistake must be obvious and patent and debatable issue cannot be a subject matter of rectification. (ii) According to the CIT(A), the appeal has been filed only against the original intimation dated 06.07.2014 and not against the order passed under section 154 of the Act dated 26.09.2019. According to the CIT(A), even in the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee there is no specific ground with regard to rectification of mistake apparent on the record and therefore it was clear that the appeal filed by the assessee was one against the inti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 24.09.2021 9. The facts and the decision of the CIT(A), however, remains that the same and the common thread of reasoning of the CIT(A) in all these appeals is the same as stated in the earlier paragraph of this order. 10. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. We may also mention that in ITA No.483/Bang/2022 in Form No.35 filed before the CIT(A), the assessee has given the Assessment Year wrongly instead of the correct Assessment Year 2014-15. We have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee who submitted as follows: a) That there is no ambiguity in the non-applicability of the provisions of section 200A of the Act for a period prior to 01.06.2015 as per the statute and clarifications issued by CBDT and consequently, non-appreciation of the prevailing position in law is a mistake apparent on record in terms of section 154 of the Act. b) That the binding judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi in 289 CTR 602 clearly lays down the law that the provisions of section 200A of the Act are not applicable for a period prior to 01.06.2015 and co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... By doing so, in our view, the CIT(A) has also construed the appeal of the assessee as one against the order under section 154 of the Act. This inference is supported from the observations made by the CIT(A) on the debatable nature of the issue raised by the assessee in the application u/s.154 of the Act. 13. It is not in dispute that if the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateeraj Singhvi (supra) if applied then the levy of interest u/s.234-E of the Act would be illegal for returns of TDS in respect of the period prior to 1.6.2015. The present appeals of the assessee relate to TDS returns filed prior to 1.6.2015. The decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateeraj Singhvi (supra)was rendered on 26.8.2016. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee, there is no ambiguity in the non applicability of the provisions of section 200A of the Act for the period prior to 01.06.2015 as interpreted by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateeraj Singhvi (supra). Therefore the issue before the AO in the application under section 154 of the Act cannot be said to be a debatable issue on which two views are ....