9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ble Karnataka High Court. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Subramaniam -vs.- Siemens India Ltd.[ 1983 (4) TMI 3 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] held that in the case where there is conflict of views between different High Courts, authorities must follow the decision of the High Court within whose jurisdiction he is functioning. The Court further added that in cases where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts, the ITO must take the view which is in favour of the assessee and not against him. Relief should not be refused to the taxpayer merely because there was a conflicting decision of a non-jurisdictional high court - we are of the view that the levy of interest u/s.234E of the Act in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C, he shall be liable to pay, by way of fee, a sum of two hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues. (2) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be. (3) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with subsection (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor shall be determined after adjustment of the amount computed under clause (b) and clause (c) against any amount paid under section 200 or section 201 or section 234E and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest or fee; (e) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the deductor specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, him under clause (d); and (f) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (d) shall be granted to the deductor: Provided that no intimation under this sub-section shall be sent after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed. Explanation.- F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 wherein the Hon ble Karnataka High Court held that amendment made u/s. 200A providing that fee u/s. 234E of the Act could be computed at the time of processing of return and issue of intimation has come into effect only from 1.6.2015 and had only prospective effect and therefore, no computation of fee u/s.234E of the Act for delayed filing of return of TDS while processing a return of TDS u/s.234E of the Act could have been made for tax deducted at source for the assessment years prior to 1.6.2015. 5. The NFAC/CIT(Appeals) agreed with the contention that the issue has been decided by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in favour of the Assessee in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be illegal for returns of TDS in respect of the period prior to 1.6.2015. The present appeals of the Assessee relate to TDS returns filed prior to 1.6.2015 and therefore levy of interest u/s.234E of the Act would not be valid, following the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court. 8. It is no doubt true that three Hon ble High Courts of Madras, Gujarat and Kerala, have taken a contrary view to the view taken b y the Hon ble Karantaka High Court in the case of Fateeraj Singhvi (supra). If there is conflicting views rendered by different High Courts, the view taken by the jurisdictional High Court is binding in the jurisdictional area of the respective High Court. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Subramaniam - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce would also be conducive to their smooth working; otherwise there would be confusion in the administration of law and respect for law would irretrievably suffer. 9. In the case of Mahadev Cold Storage Vs. AO ITA No.41 42/Agr/2021 order dated 14.6.2021, it was held that although a centralized NFAC had been created by the notifications, it had to be ensured that where an appellate order was passed by the NFAC, the decision of the jurisdictional high court with jurisdiction over the AO should be followed and applied by the NFAC. Relief should not be refused to the taxpayer merely because there was a conflicting decision of a non-jurisdictional high court. It was held that an appeal against the decision of the Agra ITAT would be befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
