9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 34E of the Income Tax Act, for delay in filing TDS returns. Therefore all the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 3. The facts involved in all the above appeals are identical, being that an intimation u/s 200A of the Act was made to the assessees on processing TDS returns filed by them, levying thereunder fees u/s 234E for late filing of the TDS returns. The details of the said intimations passed in each of the above cases is as under : S.NO. ITA No. Name of the assessee Date of levied Intimation u/s 200A Fees u/s 234E (Rs.) 1. 1158/2017 M/s Sonalac Paints and Coatings. Ltd. Chandigarh 11.01.2014 14,000/- 2. 963/2017 M/s Nagpal Trading Co. Chandigarh 11.01.2014 33,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the case, no fee should have been levied on the appellant. 4. That on the facts, circumstances of the case and in law, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO wherein he was unjustified in charging fee of Rs. 14,000/- u/s 234E on account of late filing of TDS statement by passing intimation u/s 200A even when there was reasonable cause which prevented the appellant from filing the TDS statement in time. 5. That on the facts, circumstances of the case and in law, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO wherein he was unjustified in charging fee of Rs. 14,000/- u/s 234E on account of late filing of TDS statement by passing intimation u/s 200A even when the impugned intimation was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .10.2015 2. Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (2015) 121 DTR 81 (Amritsar) 6. At this juncture, the ld. DR pointed out that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani Vs UOI reported in 83 Taxman.com 137/ 297 CTR 502 had held that the amendment made to Section 200A authorizing the AO to make adjustment of the fees to be levied u/s 234E while processing TDS returns, w.e.f. 01-06-2015, was retrospective in nature. Copy of the order was placed before us. Ld. DR, therefore, stated that the fees in the present case had been rightly charged by way of adjustment made while processing return u/s 200A of the Act. 7. In rebuttal, ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of Section 200A of the Act and further that fees in all the above cases was levied prior to 01.06.2015. Further, we have noted that the provisions of Section 234E for levy of fees on account of late filing of TDS returns was brought on the Statute vide Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 and also that Section 200A, which deals with the processing of TDS returns, gave no mandate to make adjustments on account of levy of fees u/s 234E prior to 01.06.2015 and that the same was brought on the Statute only vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The other relevant Section taken note of is the provisions of Section 246A which lists the orders against which appeal lies to the CIT(A) and which we find that the same includes intimati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s passed levying fees u/s 234E. It was in this context that the Hon'ble High Court held that even if no appeal lay against levy of fees u/s 234E, the remedy of writ still remained with the aggrieved parties and therefore, the constitutional validity of the said Section could not be challenged on this ground. It may be noted that the observation of the Hon'ble High Courts was in the context of no appeal lying against the levy of fees u/s 234E per-se, but where fees are levied by way of adjustment made in intimations u/s 200A, the said intimations are appealable as per the Statute before the CIT(A). In such cases, the levy of fees is challenged by way of filing appeals against the intimations passed against Section 200A and this is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority of law. With two divergent views of the Hon'ble High Courts on the issue and in the absence of any decision by the jurisdictional High Court, we concur with the ld. counsel for the assessee that as per the well accepted rule of construction if two reasonable constructions of a statute are possible the construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. In view of the same, respectfully following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra), we hold that the fees levied in all the present cases u/s 234E prior to 01.06.2015 in the intimations made u/s 200A was without authority of law and the same is, therefore, directed to be deleted. In view of the above, all the appeals of the assessees st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
