9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allenge the validity of Section 234E of the Act. In view of the reasons recorded when the amendment made under Section 200A of the Act which has come into effect on 1.6.2015 is held to be having prospective effect, 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. Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 196 to 198/CTK/2020 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2021 - P. M. Jagtap , Vice President And C. M. G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not controvert the above submissions of Ld. A.R. of the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record before us. In this case, the ITO (TDS) has levied late fees of Rs. ₹ 1,60,200/- for A.Y. 2013-14, ₹ 1,990,000/- for A.Y. 2014-15 ₹ 52,000/- for A.Y. 2015-16, which was upheld by the first appellate authority. The main thrust of Ld. A.R. of the assessee is that levy of late fees u/s. 234E cannot be made before 1.6.2015. We find that this Bench vide its order dated 27.8.2018 in ITA Nos. 323 to 332/CTK/2018 in the case of TB and ID Hospital vs. ITO (TDS) has deleted the levy of late fees u/s. 234E on similar facts, observing as follows: 6. Ld. AR filed an order of this Bench of the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e.f. 01.06.2015, the Parliament by way of an amendment to Section 200A of the Act, has empowered the AO to levy fee u/s. 234E of the Act while processing u/s. 200A of the Act. Therefore, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding in respect of the vires of the statute and the said issue was left open. However, the Hon'ble High Court held that prior to 01.06.2015, the AO while issuing intimation u/s. 200A does not have 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 sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 234E of the Act. In view of the reasons recorded by us hereinabove, when the amendment made under Section 200A of the Act which has come into effect on 1.6.2015 is held to be having prospective effect, 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 u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 200(3) of the Act. Therefore, the fee levied u/s. 234E of the Act while processing the statement of tax deducted at source was beyond the scope provided under Section 200A of the Act. Accordingly, we respectfully follow the judicial precedent and set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act in Quarter 4 in the A.Y. 2013-2014, for Quarters 1 to 4 in the assessment year 2014-2015 and for Quarters 1 to 4 in the assessment year 2015-2016 and allow the appeals i.e. ITA Nos. 323 to 331/CTK/2018 filed by the assessee. 6. No contrary decision was filed by Ld. D.R. that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of TB and ID Hospital (supra) is varied by any other higher courts. Therefore, followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
