9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessee : Shri S.V. Agrawal, CA For The Revenue : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr-DR ORDER This bunch of appeals has been filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad dated 14.08.2015 for Assessment Years 2014-15. Since all these appeals belong to the same assessee and almost identical issues were raised in these appeals; therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. For the facility of reference, I take the lead case as ITA No. 2888/Ahd/2015 for AY 2014-15. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:- The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-8, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This issue has been thoroughly examined by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Siddhi Vinayak Developers vs. DCIT(supra) and held as under:- 5. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The ITAT, Amristar Bench has made elaborate discussion on this issue. The finding has been reproduced in the case of Indian Overseas Bank Vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad rendered in ITA No.3271/Ahd/2014. It reads as under: 5. I find that the issue in appeal is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Limited vs. DCIT - ITA No.90/Asr/2015, vide order dated 9th June, 2015, wherein the Division Bench has inter alia observed as under :- 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 206C, he shall be liable to pay, by way of fee, a sum of two hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues. (2) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be. (3) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with sub- section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub- section (3) of section 206C. (4) The provisions of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the deductor specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, him under clause (c); and (e) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (c) shall be granted to the deductor: Provided that no intimation under this sub-section shall be sent after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed. Explanation : For the purposes of this sub-section, an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the statement shall mean a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the statement- (i) of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such statement; (ii) in respect of rate of deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of processing of a TDS statement and issuance of intimation under section 200A in respect thereof, an adjustment could also be made in respect of the fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E . There is no dispute that what is impugned in appeal before us is the intimation under section 200A of the Act, as stated in so many words in the impugned intimation itself, and, as the law stood, prior to 1st June 2015, there was no enabling provision therein for raising a demand in respect of levy of fees under section 234E. While examining the correctness of the intimation under section 200A, we have to be guided by the limited mandate of Section 200A, which, at the relevant point of time, permitted co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levy could be effected. As intimation under section 200A, raising a demand or directing a refund to the tax deductor, can only be passed within one year from the end of the financial year within which the related TDS statement is filed, and as the related TDS statement was filed on 19th February 2014, such a levy could only have been made at best within 31st March 2015. That time has already elapsed and the defect is thus not curable even at this stage. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, the impugned levy of fees under section 234 E is unsustainable in law. We, therefore, uphold the grievance of the assessee and delete the impugned levy of fee under section 234E of the Act. The assessee gets the reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
