9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o bearing in mind entirety of the case, the impugned levy of fees under section 234E is unsustainable in law. We, therefore, delete the impugned levy of fee under section 234E of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2372 to 2374/Ahd/2016 - - - Dated:- 3-11-2017 - SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Aseem Thakkar, AR For The Revenue : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr DR ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This bunch of appeals has been filed by the assessee against common order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad dated 18.07.2016 for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. Since all these appeals belong to the same assessee and common issue was raised in all these three 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, we take ITA No. 2372/Ahd/2016 for AY 2014-15 as the lead case. 2. In ITA No.2372/Ahd/2016, the assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the stipulated time before the ld. CIT(A) and the CIT(A) was not justified in summarily dismissing the appeal. 5. On merits of the case, learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that similar issue arose before the Tribunal in the case of Wonder Waves Entertainment Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.2143 to 2146/Ahd/2015 for AY 2014-15, wherein the Tribunal, following the decision of ITAT, Amritsar Bench rendered in ITA No.90/Asr/2015 in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Ltd vs. DCIT, has decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee, by observing as under:- 6. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. We deem it pertinent to take note of the lucid enunciation of law and facts made by the ITAT, Amritsar while deleting the charging of late fee u/s. 234E of the Act. The findings reads as under:- 4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. In addition to his argument on the merits, learned counsel has also invited our attention to the reports about the decisions of various Hon'ble High Courts, including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovision, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was as follows: 200A: Processing of statements of tax deducted at source (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source, or a correction statement, has been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 200, such statement shall be processed in the following manner, namely:-- ( a) the sums deductible under this Chapter shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:-- ( i) any arithmetical error in the statement; or ( ii) an incorrect claim, apparent from any information in the statement; ( b) the interest, if any, shall be computed on the basis of the sums deductible as computed in the statement; ( c) the sum payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the deductor shall be determined after adjustment of amount computed under clause (b) against any amount paid under section 200and section 201, and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest; ( d) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the deductor specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, him und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 computation of amount recoverable from, or payable to, the tax deductor after making the following adjustments: ( a). after making adjustment on account of arithmetical errors and incorrect claims apparent from any information in the statement - Section 200A(1)(a). ( b) after making adjustment for 'interest, if any, computed on the basis of sums deductible as computed in the statement . - Section 200A(1)(b) 9. No other adjustments in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at that point of time. 10. In vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
