9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovision under section 200A, no such 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 14th October, 2014, such a levy could only have been made at best within 15th October, 2015. That time has already elapsed and the defect is thus not curable even at this stage. In view of these discussions, bearing in mind entirety the facts of the case, the impugned levy of fees under section 234E is unsustainable in law. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2499/Del./2016 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2018 - MS. BEENA A. PILLA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) Karnal confirmed the levy of late fees of ₹ 18200/- u/s 234E of the act and rejected the said appeal vide his order dated 08.02.2016 observing that the issue of legality of orders passed under section 200A, levying late filing feel u/s 234E prior to 01.06.2015 was examined by the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of M/s. Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan . vs Union of India and Ors. Order dated 28 July, 2015 (Uncited). The relevant para is reproduced below: - In the present case, the fee was levied under section 200 for late filing of the returns, prior to the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 01.06.2015 in Section 200A, 246 A and 272A providing for computation and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he sides and after examining the intimation passed u/s 200A carefully, we find that it was an intimation passed in form No. 35 and not a separate order, the Assessing Officer was required to passed U/S 234E r/w Section 200 A of the Act. Thus, intimation in form No. 35 cannot be presumed to be the order passed U/S 234 E of the Act perse, rather it is an intimation passed U/S 200 A of the Act. 6. The ITAT, Chennai Bench, in the case of Smt. G Indrani Vs. DCIT (3) ,(Supra), clearly held that it is open to the Assessing Officer to pass a separate order under Section 234E of the Act levying fee provided the limitation for such a levy has not expired. Accordingly, the intimation under Section 200A as confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) in so far a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocessing the statement under Section 200 A and making adjustment. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in levying fee under Section 234E while processing the statement and make adjustment under Section 200A of the Act. Therefore, the impugned intimation of the lower authorities levying fee under Section 234 E of the Act cannot be sustained in law. However, it is made clear that it is open to the Assessing Officer to pass a separate order under Section 234 E of the Act levying fee provided the limitation for such a levy has not expired. Accordingly, the intimation under Section 200 A as confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) in so far as levy o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
