9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evy 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. Respectfully following the decision in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi [ 2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 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. All the appeals of the assessee stand allowed. - ITA Nos. 177 & 178/Hyd/2018 - - - Dated:- 26-10-2018 - SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri T. Rajendra Prasad For the Respondent : Shri Nilanjan Dey ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easons adduced by the appellant for the huge delay of more than 4 years in filing of appeal has no substance. I am, therefore, nlot satisfied with the appellant's explanation for not presenting the appeal within the period of limitation in terms of provisions of Section 249(3) of the Act and after a lapse of more than 4 years. Hence, the delay in filing of appeal is not condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted at the threshold stage itself. 3. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us and raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Appellant MSVIT Solutions Private Limited filed its TDS return of Quarter 4 for the Financial Year 2012-13 on dt.14.11.2013. The same is processed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch order produced for ready perusal in support of the present issue in Appeal. The Appellant under Appeal relied upon the decisions of ITAT, Pune in the case of Gajanana Constructions Vs. CIT, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad (2016) 161 ITO 313 (Pune Tribunal) and also various Tribunal/High Court Decisions. The coordinate bench of this Tribunal, under similar circumstances held that power to charge/collect fees u/s 234E of the Act was vested with revenue only on substitution of clause (c) to section 200A of the Act vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Hence, prior to 1.6.2015, no fee could have been levied u/s.234E of the Act while issuing intimation u/s 200A of the Act. 6. There is no enabling provision in section 200A of the Act, before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 178/Hyd/2018 6. Brief facts of the case are that the AO levied late fee of ₹ 24,400/- u/s 234E. The assessee appealed against the action of the AO to CIT(A) and contended before him that the provisions to include late fee u/s 234E in the intimation u/s 200A of the Act came into effect only through the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01/06/2015 and, therefore, prior to 01/06/2015 such inclusion of late fee u/s 234E in the intimation u/s 200A is not permissible under the law and consequently any such levy is unsustainable and hence the levy is liable to be deleted. In support of these contentions, the AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of the Pune Bench of ITAT in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat prior to 01.06.2015, there was no mandate, as per the Statute, to make any adjustment on account of levy of fees uls 234E while processing TOS returns uls 200A. We have taken note of the order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court holding the amendment made to section 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015, giving power to make adjustment on account of fees u/s 234E while processing returns u/s 200A to be retrospective in nature, stating that this power given to the AO is a machinery provision while the substantive provision of the power to levy fees uls 234E was always there on the Statute from 01.06.2012. But at the same time, we note that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that levy of fees uls 234E while processing returns, TDS u/s 200A prio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
