9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here in this case, it cannot be held that there is any violation of section 200(3). In any case, the levy of fee vi] s 200A in accordance with the provision of section 234E has come into the statute w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Since the challan and statement has been filed much prior to this date, therefore, no such tax can be levied u/s 200A. Nowhere in the judgments Hon'ble Courts have held Fees u/s 200A read with section 234E shall be levied prior to 1.06.2105, because prior to this date has not prescribed levy of fees u/s 200A. Thus, we hold that no fee was leviable to the assessee u/ s 234E in violation of section 200(3), because assessee had furnished the statement immediately after depositing all the tax without any delay. Accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Biswajit Das vs Union of India 413 ITR 92 and also judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mr. Rashmikant Kundalia vs Union of India and Writ petition No. 771 of 2014 and submitted that the levy of fee u/s 234E is automatic wherever there is a delay in view of statement of tax at source. 4. After considering the impugned orders we find delay in filing of statement in regard to various quarters for the financial years 2012- 13. The demand has been raised by the department u/s 200 in terms of failure to comply with section 200A which deals with the processing of statement of tax deducted at source u/s 200. First of all, sub section 3 of section 200 provides that the person deducting any sum in accordan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... word challan in the said rule indicates that the tax must stand paid and that is how form 26QB is generated. Thus, here in this case, it cannot be held that there is any violation of section 200(3). In any case, the levy of fee vi] s 200A in accordance with the provision of section 234E has come into the statute w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Since the challan and statement has been filed much prior to this date, therefore, no such tax can be levied vi] s 200A. This has been clarified and held by Hon 'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi Ors vs. Union of India reported in (2016) 289 CTR 0602, wherein the lordship had made following observations :- 14. We may now deal with the contentions raised by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
