Delhi ITAT: Different Refinement Applications for Many Intimations of Late Fees on Belated TDS Returns

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench, filed a separate rectification application for several intimations related to different financial years for levying late fees on the basis of a belatedly filed Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) return.

The taxpayer, Abhishek Malhotra is a practising advocate and filed TDS returns belatedly for distinct quarters in FY 2013-14 & 2014-15. The CPC, Bangalore, furnished the intimations levying the late fee U/S 234-E of the IT Act for each quarter.

The assessee submitted a request for common rectification to the ITO, arguing that no demand under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act could have been made in the manner described before January 6, 2015.

Because the power of rectification does not fall under the ambit of the A.O., the assessee’s claimed application for rectification has been rejected.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the assessee could not maintain a single appeal for multiple intimations pertaining to three different financial years because each intimation under Section 200-A passed by the CPC had a separate cause of action.

After that, the assessee appealed to the tribunal. Every authority listed in Section 116 of the Income Tax Act, especially the Assessee’s jurisdictional A.O., has the right to correction, according to the Assessee’s counsel Satish Gioel.

S. Krishnan, counsel for the revenue, argued that the Assessee had a distinct cause of action against each of the many intimations given by the CPC according to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act and that the CIT (Appeals) was thus correct to dismiss the Assessee’s single appeal.

The tribunal noted that Jurisdictional A.O. has the authority to consider the application made by the Assessee in accordance with Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. In addition, the assessee had only submitted one correction application to the A.O., as opposed to many intimations. The two-member bench comprising Shamim Yahya, an accountant, and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member), instructed the parties to submit separate rectification petitions in response to each intimation after taking into account the facts provided by both parties.