Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Shreenivas Fireworks Industries, ... vs Ito Tds Ward, Madurai on 26 April, 2019
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'डी' यायपीठ, चे नई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'D' BENCH: CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं ी इंटूर रामा राव, लेखा सद य के सम%
BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1786/Chny/2018
नधा&रण वष& /Assessment Year: 2013-14
M/s. Shreenivas Fireworks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer,
212, Ammankovilpatti Middle Street, TDS Ward,
Sivakasi. Madurai.
[PAN: AADFS 5579D]
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1787/Chny/2018
नधा&रण वष& /Assessment Year: 2013-14
M/s. Arumugam Fireworks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer,
212, Ammankovilpatti Middle Street, TDS Ward,
Sivakasi. Madurai.
[PAN: AADCS 4977L]
(अपीलाथ)/Appellant) (*+यथ)/Respondent)
अपीलाथ) क, ओर से/ Appellant by : None
*+यथ) क, ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Pavana Sundari, JCIT
सन
ु वाई क, तार ख/Date of Hearing : 23.04.2019
घोषणा क, तार ख /Date of pronouncement : .04.2019
आदे श / O R D E R
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These two appeals have been filed by the assessee directed against the common order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai (hereinafter called as 'CIT(A)') dated 09.04.2018 for the assessment year 2013-14.
ITA Nos.1786 & 1787/Chny/2018 (AY: 2013-14) :- 2 -:
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The appellant is a partnership firm. During the financial year 2012- 13 the appellant had deducted tax at source and paid to the Central Government. The applicable quarterly statement was filed belatedly on 20.03.2014 and it was processed on 27.03.2014 and levied late fee of Rs. 9,000/- u/s. 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the levy of late fees u/s. 234E of the Act.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
5. The issue in the present appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri G.Radhakrishnan v. DCIT in ITA No.526/Chny/2018 dated 30.07.2018, wherein it was held as follows:
"3. None was present for the assessee, however, it has filed a written submission, wherein, it has submitted that the E-TDS statement should be processed u/s. 200A(1)(C) which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 only. According to the provisions of section 200A(1), no intimation can be sent u/s. 200A, after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed. In this case, the assessee filed the E- TDS on 29.06.2013, which was processed on 16.01.2014. The revised order, if any, can be passed on or before 31.03.2015 i.e., after one year from 31.03.2014. It has further pleaded that the ITAT, A Bench, Chennai in its orders in ITA Nos. 1019, 1020 & 1021/Mds/2015 dated 10.07.2015 in the case of Smt. G. Indhirani vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad has set aside the intimation u/s. 200A for the reason that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in section 200A of the Act for levy of fees u/s. 234E while processing the statement of tax deducted at source. The ITAT has also held that it is open to ITA Nos.1786 & 1787/Chny/2018 (AY: 2013-14) :- 3 -:
the Assessing Officer to pass a separate order u/s. 234E of the Act levying fee, provided the limitation for such a levy did not expire. Thus, the assessee submitted that the order passed by the officer dated 27.12.2016 is barred by limitation. Per contra, the DR supported the orders of the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A). 4. We find merit in the submissions made by the assessee. As held by this ITAT, the intimation sent to the assessee u/s. 200A dated 16.01.2014 raising the demand of Rs. 9,000/- u/s. 234E towards levy of late filing fee is invalid as there was no enabling provision in section 200A, viz., clause (1)(C) of section 234E, prior to 01.06.2015 for levy of fees u/s. 234E while processing the statement of tax deducted at source. It was open for the AO to pass separate order u/s. 234E levying the fee, provided the limitation for such a levy did not expire. However, in this case, the AO has not passed any order u/s. 234E independently within 31.03.2015 and hence, the impugned order is set aside."
Respectfully following the order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal supra, we allow the appeal filed by assessee. ITA No.1787/Chny/2018:
6. Since, the facts in the present appeal are identical to the facts in ITA No.1786/Chny/2018, for the reasons mentioned therein, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee on the lines indicated in appeal ITA No.1786/Chny/2018 supra. Hence, the above captioned appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
7. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced on the 26th day of April, 2019 in Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (इंटूर रामा राव)
(N.R.S. GANESAN) (INTURI RAMA RAO)
या यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
चे नई/Chennai,
2दनांक/Dated: 26th April, 2019.
EDN, Sr. P.S
ITA Nos.1786 & 1787/Chny/2018 (AY: 2013-14) :- 4 -:
आदे श क, * त3ल4प अ5े4षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ)/Appellant 2. *+यथ)/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु6त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु6त/CIT 5. 4वभागीय * त न ध/DR 6. गाड& फाईल/GF