9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 910 - AT - Income TaxLevy of fees under section 234E in intimation issued under section 200A(1) - default in furnishing the TDS statements - Held that - As decided in Maharashtra Cricket Association Vs. DCIT(CPC)-TDS, Ghaziabad 2016 (10) TMI 104 - ITAT PUNE the amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act is procedural in nature and in view thereof, the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all these appeals does not stand and the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section 234E of the Act is not valid and the same is deleted. The intimation issued by the Assessing Officer was beyond the scope of adjustment provided under section 200A of the Act and such adjustment could not stand in the eye of law. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of intimation issued under section 200A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Levy of fees under section 234E for late filing of TDS statements. 3. Retrospective or prospective applicability of the amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of Intimation Issued under Section 200A(3) The appeals were against the respective intimations issued under section 200A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The core issue was whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was empowered to levy fees under section 234E for late filing of TDS statements before the amendment to section 200A(1) effective from 01.06.2015. The Tribunal found that the AO did not have the authority to levy such fees prior to the amendment. Issue 2: Levy of Fees under Section 234E The AO had levied late filing fees under section 234E for delays in filing TDS statements. The CIT(A) upheld this action, stating that section 234E was effective from 01-07-2012 and any demand raised under this section was not appealable before CIT(A). The Tribunal, however, referenced the case of Maharashtra Cricket Association vs. DCIT, which established that the AO could not levy fees under section 234E while issuing intimation under section 200A before 01.06.2015. Issue 3: Retrospective or Prospective Applicability of the Amendment The Tribunal discussed the amendment to section 200A(1) by the Finance Act, 2015, which allowed the AO to levy fees under section 234E while processing TDS statements. The Tribunal concluded that this amendment was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the AO could not levy fees for TDS statements filed before 01.06.2015. The Tribunal cited multiple cases, including the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Sri Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors, which held that intimation raising demand prior to 01.06.2015 under section 200A levying fees under section 234E is not valid. The Tribunal also referenced the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia vs. Union of India, which upheld the constitutional validity of section 234E but did not address its retrospective application. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act is procedural and prospective. Consequently, the AO was not empowered to levy fees under section 234E for TDS statements filed before 01.06.2015. The demands raised by the AO in the respective intimations were deemed invalid and deleted. All appeals filed by the assessees were allowed.
|
