9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vour of assessee needs to be followed. Since, the issue involved in the present case is identical to the issue involved in the case of Gangamai College vs. ACIT (supra) and the Tribunal has decided the same in favour of the appellant/ assessee, we find merit in the contention of the Ld. counsel that the impugned order is contrary to decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal discussed above. Hence, respectfully following the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal discussed above, we allow the appeal of the assessee and set aside impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete late fee imposed in this case. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 1072/CHD/2018 - - - Dated:- 5-7-2021 - Shri N.K. Saini, Vice President And Shri R.L Negi, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Revenue : Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT(DR) ORDER PER R.L. NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 15.06. 2018 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Shimla [for short the CIT(A) ] for the assessment year 2015-16, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udice to one another. The appellants seek leave to add or withdraw any of the aforesaid grounds as and when considered necessary. 5. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The appellants seek leave to add or withdraw any of the aforesaid grounds as and when considered necessary. 4. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the appellant/ assessee submitted before us that in the present case the due date for filing TDS return was 15. 07. 2014 for the period 01. 04. 2014 to 30. 06. 2014. The amendment of section 200(1)(c) of the Act came into force on 01.06. 2015. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner by applying the law existing before the amendment. The Ld. Counsel further pointed out that the issue involved in this case is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sibia Health Care Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS) ITA No 90/ Asr/2014 Ay. 2013-14, decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. ACIT (TDS)-2, ITA No. 1999/Mum/2017, decision of the Delhi Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod of filing appeals from the date of issue of intimation under section 200A of the Act and not from the date of issue of order under section 154 of the Act, in bunch of appeals in the case of Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital in ITA N0S.651/PUN/2018 to ITA Nos.1167 to 1171/PUN/2018 Gangamai College of Engineering 661/PUN/2018 and Junagade Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. in ITA N0S.1018/PUN/2018 to 1028/PUN/2018, order dated 25.10.2018. The relevant findings of Tribunal are as under: - 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue arising in the present bunch of appeals is against levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act while issuing intimation under section 200A of the Act, in the first bunch of appeals. The second bunch of appeals in the case of Junagade Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. is against order of Assessing Officer passed under section 154 of the Act rejecting rectification application moved by assessee against intimation issued levying late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act. The case of assessee before us is that the issue is squarely covered by various orders of Tribunal, wherein the issue has been decided in respect of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd failure for payment of fee under Section 200A which has been brought about with effect from ITA Nos.1167 to 1171/PUN/2018 Gangamai College of Engineering 1.6.2015 cannot be said as only by way of a regulatory mode or a regulatory mechanism but it can rather be termed as conferring substantive power upon the authority. It is true that, a regulatory mechanism by insertion of any provision made in the statute book, may have a retroactive character but, whether such provision provides for a mere regulatory mechanism or confers substantive power upon the authority would also be an aspect which may be required to be considered before such provisions is held to be retroactive in nature. Further, when any provision is inserted for liability to pay any tax or the fee by way of compensatory in nature or fee independently simultaneously mode and the manner of its enforceability is also required to be considered and examined. Not only that, but, if the mode and the manner is not expressly prescribed, the provisions may also be vulnerable. All such aspects will be required to be considered before one considers regulatory mechanism or provision for regulating the mode and the manner of recove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act and the mechanism provided for computation of fees and failure for payment of fees under section 200A of the Act which was brought on Statute w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The said amendment was held to be prospective in nature and hence, notices ITA Nos.1167 to 1171/PUN/2018 Gangamai College of Engineering issued under section 200A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act relating to the period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015 were not maintainable and were set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. In view of said proposition being laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka (supra), there is no merit in observations of CIT(A) that in the present case, where the returns of TDS were filed for each of the quarters after 1st day of June, 2015 and even the order charging late filing fees was passed after June, 2015, then the same are maintainable, since the amendment had come into effect. The CIT(A) has overlooked the fact that notices under section 200A of the Act were issued for computing and charging late filing fees under section 234E of the Act for the period of tax deducted prior to 1st day of June, 2015. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
