9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement, even after 1.6.2015 and thereafter, demand for payment of fees under section 234E has been raised by the Assessing Officer. In case of Fatheraj Singhvi [ 2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that provisions of amended section 200A are prospective in nature. Further, in case of Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan [ 2015 (9) TMI 807 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] relied by CIT (A) is in the context of validity of section 234E, but not in context of power of AO for levy of fee under section 234E prior to 1.6.2015. It is observed that many decisions of this Tribunal has taken similar view by following decision of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra). Assessing Officer while processing TDS statements for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intimation under section 200 A of the I.T. Act, 1961 (the Act), dated 20/01/2015 passed by CPC-TDS, wherein late fee under section 234E amounting to ₹ 30,000 has been levied. 2.1. Against the said intimation assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). It was submitted that assessee deducted TDS in time and deposited TDS within time allowed, but there was delay in filing the statement of 1st quarter for financial year 2014-15, due to oversight and it was filed on 15/01/2015. 2.2 . Ld.CIT(A) after considering arguments advanced by assessee rejected claim by placing reliance upon decision of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in case of M/s. Dundold Shikhshan Sansthan vs Union of Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan ( supra ), wherein Hon'ble Court placing reliance on decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India [2015] 54 taxmann.com 200 adjudicated the issue relating to whether fees charged is legal or illegal and has upheld constitutional validity of levy of fees u/s 234E. It has been submitted that Hon ble Court did not touch upon mechanism to levy fees u/s 234E in TDS Statement processed u/s 200A. It was thus submitted that impugned intimation u/s 200A was processed during period prior to 1.6.2015, and therefore bad in law. 5. On the contrary, Ld. Sr.DR placed reliance upon orders pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
