9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Financial Year 2013-2014 relating to assessment year 2014-2015 on 12th March, 2015. The same was required to be filed by the assessee on 31st May, 2014. Therefore, the AO levied late fee u/s.234E of the Act for 301 days @Rs.200/- per day and determined the late fee payable by the assessee at Rs. 60,200/-. 4. Being aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO. 5. Before us, the AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Glee Pharma Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos.161 to 163/CTK/2016, order dated 28.08.2017 and argued that the Tribunal has deleted the late fee by observing that the provision of Section 234E of the Act is applicable w.e.f.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prior to that date i.e.01.06 .2015, the AO had no authority to levy fee u/s 234E of the Act. Therefore, according to the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, that the AO erred in levying the fee u/s 234E of the Act which been wrongly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) need to deleted. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT(DR) contended that the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. Union of India 62 taxmann.com 310 (Punjab & Haryana) has taken a view which is in favour of the Revenue. On a query from the bench as to whether the jurisdictional High Court i.e. Hon'ble Orissa High Court has passed any orders in respect to the LIS before us. The Ld. DR fairly conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave the authority under law, to make any order u/s 243E of the Act and was pleased to delete the order of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held as follows In para 22 to 24 which is reproduced as under: 22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Under the circumstances, we find that substitution made by clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for the fee under Section 234E could be made for the TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent-authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent." 8. We take note that the facts of the aforesaid case and the facts before us are similar. Only after 01.06.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act while processing the statement under section 200A of the Act and not before. Therefore, respectfully relying the order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the impugned inti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
