The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad bench ruled that the late fee beneath section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not be imposed when the statement has been furnished within the due date, but including technical errors.
The taxpayer, G.B. Builders, has initially deposited the complete TDS towards the buying of the immovable property dated 24-11-2014 under TDS section 194-IA of the Act that is under the due date from the buying of the immovable property. Because of some technical errors done (wrong interchanging of PAN numbers of buyer and seller in online filing of Statement 26QB), the seller can not get the credit of TDS, and subsequently, on the recommendation of Revenue authorities again the buyer (taxpayer) furnished the TDS amount again including interest for the late deposit. The CPC, Ghaziabad, after finishing the proceedings, imposed a late fee on the taxpayer for the late filing of the TDS statement.
The Tribunal bench comprising Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member, and Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member depends on the catena of judgments and track that the taxpayer has initially deposited TDS u/s 194-IA of the Act and as per the furnished TDS statement in the due date from the moment when the immovable property was transferred but executed a technical default during furnishing of the TDS Statement resulting into non-grant of TDS credit, forcing the taxpayer to again deposit TDS along-with interest, could the taxpayer be punished for late filing of modified TDS Statement u/s 234E of the Act.
As per the incidence, we held up with the acknowledged view that Ld. CIT(A) would not recognize the facts and attendant circumstances of the case during uploading the levy of the penalty under section 235E of the Act. when the taxpayer deposited the TDS and filed a statement in Form 26QB within time, but performed a technical error during depositing the TDS resulting in non-grant of the TDS to the transferor, pushing it to again deposit TDS including interest for the late deposit, interests of justice and acknowledging the points that no loss is caused to the revenue, the taxpayer cannot be burdened by imposing a late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act, bringing a judicious view of the case. As a result, we hold that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in upholding levy of penalty u/s 234E of the Act, the Tribunal mentioned.
