9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Our coordinate bench in the case of M/s. Dhami Finance Ltd. [ 2017 (11) TMI 1847 - ITAT MUMBAI] has also taken a similar view. In fact, the Mumbai bench has noted and followed an earlier decision of the Pune bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gajanan Constructions and others [ 2016 (11) TMI 1247 - ITAT PUNE] . In so far as the reliance placed by the CIT(A) on the judgment of MR RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ 2015 (2) TMI 412 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , the same is quite misplaced wherein merely upheld the constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act; and not dealing with the issue as to whether prior to 01.06.2015, while processing the TDS statement under Section 200A of the Act, the late f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the pertinent points raised by the appellant is that while processing the TDS statement under Section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer is not empowered to impose the fee prescribed in Section 234E of the Act for late furnishing of the statement prior to 01.06.2015. Section 200A(1) of the Act has been amended by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, inter-alia, providing for levy of fee prescribed in Section 234E of the Act. Thus, it is contended that levy of fee as per Section 234E of the Act is illegal and wrong in the present case. 4. The aforesaid plea has been opposed by the Revenue before us, and the Ld. D.R pointed out that the CIT(A) has upheld the imposition of fee by relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... validity of Section 234E of the Act; and, as has been rightly noted by the Pune bench, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was not dealing with the issue as to whether prior to 01.06.2015, while processing the TDS statement under Section 200A of the Act, the late fee envisaged under Section 234E of the Act, could be levied or not. Thus, reliance placed by the Ld. D.R. on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia (supra) is misplaced, as it has been rendered in an altogether different context. 7. Thus, we delete the levy of fee charged by the Assessing Officer under Section 234E of the Act while processing the statement under Section 200A of the Act, as being bereft of jurisdiction at the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
