Intimation issued by AO is appealable where fee is charged for delay in filing of TDS returns

Facts:

a) The issue arising in this appeal was against the intimation issued under section 200A in charging fees payable under section 234E.

b) The CIT(A) held that no appeal was maintainable against the order of AO passed under Section 200A while processing the TDS returns and charging fees under Section 234E. The ITAT held as under:

1) The Legislature recognizes that a deductor who has filed his TDS return, which, in turn, has been processed by the AO and intimation is generated under which, if any amount is found to be payable, then such intimation is also appealable under section 246A since the demand issued by the AO is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156.

2) Since the intimation issued by the AO was appealable order under section 246A(1)(a) of the Act, therefore, the CIT(A) should have examined the legality of adjustment made under intimation issued under section 200A.- [2016] 74 taxmann.com 6 (Pune - Trib.)

Fee for delay in filing TDS return not permissible in an intimation with retro-effect: Pune ITAT

Facts:

a) The issue raised in this appeal related to charging of fees payable under section 234E prior to amendment to section 200A(1)(c) [vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015], while processing the TDS returns.

b) The assessee also pointed that the Legislature had inserted clause (c) in section 200A(1) of the Act specifically w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and there was nothing to suggest that the said amendment was clarificatory or retrospective in nature. Hence, in respect of TDS statements filed for the period prior to 01.06.2015, late fees under section 234E could not be levied in the intimation issued under section 200A.

The ITAT held in favour of assessee as under:

1) Where the TDS return could not be filed before the prescribed authority within stipulated time, the assessee was liable to levy of fees under section 234E.

Fee charged for late filing of TDS return isn't a tax; HC upholds constitutional validity of sec. 234E

The fee sought to be levied under section 234E is not a tax that is sought to be levied on the deductor. The provisions of section 234E is not onerous on the ground that the section does not empower the AO to condone the delay in late filing of the TDS return, or that no appeal is provided for from an arbitrary order passed under section 234E

Facts:

a)Petitioner, a practicing Chartered Accountant, challenged the constitutional validity of section 234E. Section 234E seeks to levy a fee of Rs.200/- per day (subject to certain other conditions) inter-alia on a person who deducts Tax at Source and then fails to deliver or cause to be delivered the TDS return to the authorities within the prescribed period.

b)He argued that legislature had categorically termed the levy under section 234E of the Act as a "fee", it necessarily could be levied only in the event the Government was providing any service. In the absence thereof, the said section seeks to collect tax in the guise of a fee. This, according to the learned counsel, was impermissible either in common law or under the taxing statute, and encroached on the rights of life and liberty of the citizens.

c)He further submitted that the provisions of section 234E were extremely onerous as the AO was not vested with any power to condone the delay in filing the TDS return and there was also no provision of appeal against order of AO.

The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 234E and made following observations:

1)There is an obligation on the Income Tax Department to process the income tax returns within the specified period. Department cannot accurately process the return until information of TDS is furnished by the deductor within the prescribed time.

2)If the income tax returns having refund claims were not processed in a timely manner, it would result in delay in issuing refunds or raising of infructuous demands. Late payment of refund also affects the government financially as the Government has to pay interest for delay in granting the refunds.

3)The Legislature took note of the fact that a substantial number of deductors were not furnishing their TDS returns within the prescribed time frame which was absolutely essential. This led to an additional work burden upon the Department due to the fault of the deductor by not furnishing the TDS returns in time. It was in this backdrop, and to compensate for the additional work burdened upon the Department, that a fee was sought to be levied under section 234E. Thus, section 234E is not punitive in nature but a fee which is a fixed charge for the extra service which the Department has to provide due to the late filing of the TDS statements.

4)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 was not as if the aggrieved party was left remediless. Such aggrieved person could always approach this Court in its extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be. Therefore,we do not agree with the argument of the Petitioners that simply because no remedy of appeal was provided for, the provisions of section 234E were onerous. - RASHMIKANTKUNDALIA V. UNION OF INDIA[2015] 54 taxmann.com 200 (Bombay)