9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ’ble Gujarat High Court that section 200A is not a source of substantive power. Substantive power to levy fee could be traced to section 234E of the Act. See RAJESH KOURANI Versus UNION OF INDIA [2017 (7) TMI 458 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] We decline to interfere with the action of the Revenue towards invoking section 234E of the Act for levy of late filing fee appealed against. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No.1375,1376 And 1377/Ahd/2015 - - - Dated:- 1-2-2018 - SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Rekha Belsare, A.R For The Respondent by : Dinesh Singh, Sr. D.R ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: The captioned appeal have been filed at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 234E in view of the limited mandate of section 200A at the relevant time. The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the issue is no longer res integra and decided in favour of assessee s placed in similar facts situations by plethora of tribunal decision in respect of cases prior to 01.06.2015. The Ld. Authorised Representative relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Navin Global Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT and others ITA No. 3144/Ahd/2014 others, order dated 29.07.2016 and Wonder Waves Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No. 2143 to 2146/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2014-15, order dated 14.10.2015. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the respective orders of the CIT(A). 6. We have carefully considered the ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant statutory provisions. The picture that emerges is that prior to 01.07.2012, the Act contained a single provision in section 272A providing for penalty in case of default in filing the statements in terms of section 200 or proviso to section 206C. Such penalty was prescribed at the rate of ₹ 100 for every day during which the failure continued. With effect from 01.06.2012, three major changes were introduced in the Act. Section 234E as introduced for the first time to provide for charging of fee for late filing of the statements. Such fee would be levied at the rate of ₹ 200/- for every day of failure subject to the maximum amount of tax deductible or collectible as the case may be. Section 271H was also introduced f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting sub-section (1), the new clause-c permits the authority to compute the fee, if any, payable by the assessee under section 234E of the Act and by virtue of clause-d, adjust the said sum against the amount paid under the various provisions of the Act. 19. In plain terms, section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing mechanism for processing a statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustments, which are, as noted earlier, arithmetical or prima-facie in nature. With effect from 01.06.2015, this provision specifically provides for computing the fee payable under section 234E of the Act. On the other hand, section 234E is a charging provision creating a charge for levying fee for certain defaults in fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such provision, as noted, it was always open for the Revenue to charge the fee in terms of section 234E of the Act. By amendment, this adjustment was brought within the fold of section 200A of the Act. This would have one direct effect. An order passed under section 200A of the Act is rectifiable under section 154 of the Act and is also appealable under section 246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this situation also would be obviated. Even prior t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goodwill. The Supreme Court referring to various provisions concerning charging and computing capital gain observed that none of these provisions suggest that they include an asset in the acquisition of which no cost can be conceived. In such a case, the asset is sold and the consideration is brought to tax, what is charged is a capital value of the asset and not any profit or gain. This decision therefore would not apply in the present case. 22. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed. 7. It is thus apparent from the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court that fee under section 234E could be levied in the relevant financial year in questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
