| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3255 (Jp-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 234E
Where TDS statement had been processed by CPC and while processing the same, fee under section 234E had been levied having tax effect less than prescribed limit, it could continue to be governed by low tax effect circular issued by CBDT which is binding on revenue.
|
Fee under section 234E - - -
Assessee deductor had filed on TRACES online the TDS statement in Form-24Q for 3rd quarter of financial year 2016-17 on 11-3-2017 during financial year 2016-17. TDS statement was processed with defaults on 17-3-2017 in compliance of provisions of section 200A and accordingly, intimation of processing with default and levy of fee of Rs. 7,800 under section 200A(1)(c) was communicated to assessee as per law. Being aggrieved by levy of fee under section 200A(1)(c), for late filing of TDS statement for 3rd quarter of financial year 2016-17, assessee deductor filed appeal before CIT(A) who allowed the appeal and deleted fee of Rs. 7,800 levied by DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad holding concurrent jurisdiction with AO (TDS)-3, Jaipur over the case as per section 120 read with section 124. Revenue submitted that fee under section 234E had been levied on the basis of processing of TDS statement by Central Processing Centre, which is an external agency and therefore, exception laid down in Para 10(e) to CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11-7-2018 was applicable. Held: Assessee had filed his TDS statement on TRACES which is an IT platform managed and run by Tax Department and thereafter, said statement has been processed centrally by Central Processing Centre which is again manned by the personnel of the Tax department and finally, intimation under section 200A(1)(c) of the said processing has been issued duly signed by Dy. CIT, CPCTDS, Ghaziabad. As per revenue's own submission, Dy. CIT, CPC-TDS Ghaziabad helds concurrent jurisdiction with AO (TDS)-3, Jaipur over the case, as per section 120 read with section 124. Therefore, even though CPC had its separate and identifiable functions relating to TDS returns, the officers held concurrent jurisdiction over such TDS matters with that of the AO, there could not be any dispute that both administratively and functionally, CPC of department was part of Income Tax Department and was therefore clearly not an external law enforcement agency qua Income Tax department and that too, as specified in aforesaid exception laid down in Para 10(e) to CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Accordingly, appeal of revenue was dismissed on account of low tax effect given that matter was not covered by any of the exceptions so specified.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2015-16 & 2016-17
IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
OR Try Reload the Page |