Ds Returns Andaccordingly, By Way Of Intimation Under Section 200A Of The.act, A Late Fee Under Section 234-E Of The Act Was Levied v. It Is Submitted That As There Is No Statutory.restriction As Sucn, As Regards To The Extent Of Delay Tnatcould Be Condoned, The Authority Ought To Have Been Lib

1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU|DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF JANUARY 202) BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV #WRIT PETITION No.19960/2021 (TIT)C/W#WRIT PETITION No.17489/2021 (TIT) IN W.P. NO.19960/2021 BETWEEN: M/S. ATLAS BRANDS PRIVATE LIMITED|NO.13A, 13B, SINGASANDRA VILLAGE,|BEGUR HOBLI, |BENGALURU,KARNATAKA - 560 068REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTORSHRI RAMESH S. BULCHANDANL. .. PETITIONER (BY SRI ASHOK A. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) 1.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), 41TH FLOOR, HMT BHAVAN NO.59, BELLARY ROAD BENGALURU - 560 032. 2.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL - TDS,. TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH - 2701 OLO. .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &22/7 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THEINTIMATION U/S 200A OF THE ACT ISSUED BY THE R2 BEARINGTHE NUMBERS AND DATED MARKED AS ENCLOSURES IN THEANNEXURES-Al TO A4 AS UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL AND ETC. IN W.P. NO.17489/2021 BETWEEN: M/S. ATLAS BRANDS PRIVATE LIMITED|NO.13A, 13B, SINGASANDRA VILLAGE,|BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU,KARNATAKA - 560 068REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR/AUTHORISED SIGNATORYSHRI RAMESH S. BULCHANDANL., (BY SRI ASHOK A. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) — PETITIONER 1.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), 41TH FLOOR, HMT BHAVANNO.59, BELLARY ROADBENGALURU - 560 032.41TH FLOOR, HMT BHAVANNO.59, BELLARY ROADBENGALURU - 560 032. 2.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL - TDS,.TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3,VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH - 2701 OLO.CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL - TDS,.TDS CPC, AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3,VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH - 2701 OLO. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &22/7 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THEINTIMATION U/S 200A OF THE ACT ISSUED BY THE R2 BEARINGFOLLOWINGDATESMARKEDAS|ENCLOSURESINTHE|ANNEXURES-Al TO A8 AS UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS.DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: | ORDER W.P.No.1/7489/2021naspeenfiled.seekingTor|appropriate writ to quash the intimation under Section 200Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act’, for short) issued by|the second respondent and nave also sought for issuance ot writ of certiorari to quasn the order dated 07.03.2020 at|Annexure- B. Tne said writ petition pertains to the!Financial Year 2013-14. 2. W.P.No.19960/2021 has been filed seeking foridentical reliefs with respect to the Financial Year 2012-153.Accordingly, botn the petitions are disposed off by acommon order. | 3. Tne petitioner (common in both the matters)submits that in the course of their business, they have|ceducted tax as per the provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the|Income Tax Act, 1961) for the period from 01.04.2013 to31.03.2014 and 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015. It is furtner submitted that the tax deducted was deposited as required.However, there was delay in filing e-ITDS returns andaccordingly, by way of intimation under Section 200A of the.Act, a late fee under Section 234-E of the Act was levied. 4. Tne petitioner submits that insofar as intimationunder Section 200A, the petitioner had sought for|rectification under Section 154 of the Act. It is submittedthat rectification orders passed under Section 154 havingdenied reliefsCO the petitioner,tne|petitioner|nadchallenged the same before the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals)-3. It is submitted that the appeals came tobe disposed off by order dated 01.08.2018. As the appealsWe.,rdismissed,asagainst|tneappellateorderof.Commissioner of Income Tax, petitioner nad filed an appealbefore the Income Tax Appellate TridDunal. Tne Income TaxAppellate Tribunal remitted the matter back to the|Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3. While doing so,it had observed that the appeals on remand would berequired to be taken up after the proceedings under 4. Tne petitioner submits that insofar as intimationunder Section 200A, the petitioner had sought for|rectification under Section 154 of the Act. It is submittedthat rectification orders passed under Section 154 havingdenied reliefsCO the petitioner,tne|petitioner|nadchallenged the same before the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals)-3. It is submitted that the appeals came tobe disposed off by order dated 01.08.2018. As the appealsWe.,rdismissed,asagainst|tneappellateorderof.Commissioner of Income Tax, petitioner nad filed an appealbefore the Income Tax Appellate TridDunal. Tne Income TaxAppellate Tribunal remitted the matter back to the|Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3. While doing so,it had observed that the appeals on remand would berequired to be taken up after the proceedings under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act initiated by the|petitioner are disposed off since if the levy under Section234E is deleted by the CIT under Section 264, the questionof there being any liability on account of interest under|Section 220 (2) would not arise. 5. The learned counsel for petitioner would point outthat in the meanwnile 264 proceedings had been initiatedby the petitioner. It is submitted that though there was|delay in initiating such proceedings, in light of legal position|arising from the judgment of tnis court in tne case of|FATHERA] SINGHVI v. UNION OF INDIAreported in(2016) 73 Taxmann.Com 252 (Kar),the Department didnot nave any authority to seek computation of fee underSection 234E with respect to the period prior to 01.06.2016|and in light of such merits the authority ought to Nave|condoned the delay. | 6. It is submitted that as there is no statutory.restriction as sucn, as regards to the extent of delay tnat|could be condoned, the authority ought to have been liberal in condoning the delay in light of the legal position and.accordingly has sought for setting aside the order passedunder Section 264 whereby the Authority had dismissed the|proceedings under Section 264 only on the ground of delay. — 7. The learned counsel! for revenue would point outthat under Section 264, the period of one year is permittedfor filing the proceedings. Taking revision of the order in|terms of Section 264 (3), the petitioner not having initiatedthe proceedings within a period of one year and also spent|considerable time witnout approaching tne authority, thepetitioner is to blame for the lapse. 8. Insofar as legal position that emanates from the judgment ofFATHERAJ SINGHVI (supra),the learned.counsel for the revenue does not dispute it though it ispointed out that contrary view has been taken Dy the HighCourt of Gujarat in the case of.RAJESH KOURANT v.UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSreported in(2017) 297|CTR (Guj) 502. In this regard, taking note that thejudgment of Division Bench in the case ofFATHERAT SINGHVI (supra)has attained finality, the law laid down)is required to be taken note of by this court as well as theRevisional Authority. 9. In light of the facts and noticing the position of law|that would emanate on reading of)FATHERA] SINGHVI(supra),it would serve the interests of justice to set asidethe impugned order at Annexure-G dated 07.03.2020. |The delay aS made out is condoned by taking note of tne|law laid down in tne case ofFATHERAJ SINGHVI (supra).That apart, it must be noticed that the Department nas|taken a conservative and hyper tecnnical view, as regardslimitation and accordingly the impugned order is set aside|by condoning the delay. 10..Accordingly, potntnewritpetitionsInW.P.No.1/7489/2021 and W.P.No.19960/2021 are allowed.The matters are remitted back to the respondent no.1 witha direction to take up the matter on its merits and disposeoff the proceedings under Section 264 pending before the|first respondent as per procedure laid down by law. 11. The matters being taken afresn pursuant to thedirection of this court, matters to be disposed off within a|period not later than 8 weeks from the date of receipt ofcertified copy of the order by the Department. _ Sd/-' JUDGE| Np/-|