The case titled Chronicle Publication Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs ACIT (CPC)-TDS, New Delhi, marked by the case number ITA 6316/DEL/2019, pertains to the assessment year 2014-15 (Q4). The case was filed on July 26, 2019, and the final tribunal order was pronounced on August 31, 2020. This case arose from the imposition of late filing fees under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and its validity for the period prior to June 1, 2015, when the amendment to Section 200A was introduced.
The appellant, Chronicle Publication Pvt Ltd, filed its TDS returns for the fourth quarter of the financial year 2014-15. However, the filing was delayed, and consequently, the ACIT (CPC)-TDS levied a late filing fee under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act. The levy was made after processing the TDS return under Section 200A, as amended by the Finance Act, 2015.
The core issue in this case revolved around whether the late filing fees could be levied for periods before the amendment to Section 200A, which came into effect on June 1, 2015. The appellant contested the levy, arguing that the amendment was prospective and that any imposition of fees for earlier periods was not legally valid.
The appellant’s primary contention was based on the argument that the amendment to Section 200A(1), which enabled the levy of late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns, was prospective. Therefore, the imposition of such fees for the period before June 1, 2015, was without legal authority.
The appellant cited several precedents, including the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in Fatehraj Singhvi & Ors. vs Union of India, where it was held that Section 200A, as amended, was applicable prospectively. The court had ruled that no late fees could be levied for periods before the amendment’s enactment.
On the other hand, the respondent, ACIT (CPC)-TDS, argued that the late fees were compensatory and should be applicable regardless of the date of the amendment. They cited various judgments from other High Courts, which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 234E and supported the levy of late fees.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench, comprising Vice President Ms. Sushma Chowla and Accountant Member Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, heard the case. After considering the arguments from both sides, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, Chronicle Publication Pvt Ltd.
The ITAT held that the amendment to Section 200A, enabling the levy of late fees under Section 234E, was indeed prospective. Therefore, any levy of late filing fees for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not legally sustainable. The tribunal noted that the legislature’s intent was clear in making the amendment effective from June 1, 2015, and applying it retrospectively would be unjust.
Consequently, the tribunal quashed the demand for late filing fees levied by the ACIT (CPC)-TDS for the fourth quarter of the assessment year 2014-15.
This ruling reinforces the principle that amendments to tax laws, particularly those involving penalties or fees, should be applied prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise by the legislature. The case of Chronicle Publication Pvt Ltd vs ACIT (CPC)-TDS highlights the importance of adherence to statutory timelines and the protection of taxpayers from retrospective penal actions.
The judgment also serves as a crucial precedent for similar cases where taxpayers have been levied with late filing fees for periods prior to the amendment of Section 200A. It underscores the necessity for tax authorities to operate within the bounds of the law as defined at the time of the transaction or filing in question.
In summary, the ITAT’s decision in this case upholds the principle of fairness in tax administration and provides clarity on the applicability of Section 234E in relation to the processing of TDS returns for periods before the 2015 amendment.
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform