9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 84 to 5 88/PUN/2022) Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani ORDER PER BENCH : The instant batch of seventeen appeals pertaining to the foregoing twin assessees contain the following details : Sr. No. ITA No. A.Y. Order appealed against proceedings 1-12 568/PUN/2021 To 579/PUN/2021 Water Treatment Equipment 2013-14 (Qrt 3 4) 2014-15 (Qrt 1, 2, 3 4) 2015-16 (Qrt 1, 2, 3 4) NFAC, Delhi s order dated 12.08.2021 passed in case No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1034808190(1)/ 1034808200(1)/ 1034808121(1)/ 1034808131(1)/ 1034808152(1)/ 1034808217(1)/ 1034808131(1)/ 1034808143(1)/ 1034808143(1)/ 1034808227(1)/ 1034808184(1)/ 1034808237(1), involving proceedings u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) 13-17 584/PUN/2022 To 588/PUN/2021 Shree Pashupati Construction 2015-16 (Qrt 1, 2, 3 4) 2016-17 (Qrt 1) NFAC, Delhi s order dated 25.05.2022 passed in case No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1043174064(1)/ 1043174563(1)/ 1043173867(1)/ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all these appeals does not stand and the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section 234E of the Act is not valid and the same is deleted. The intimation issued by the Assessing Officer was beyond the scope of adjustment provided under section 200A of the Act and such adjustment could not stand in the eye of law. 12. The said proposition has been applied in the next bunch of appeals with lead order in Vidya Vardhani Education and Research Foundation in ITA Nos.1887 to 1893/PUN/2016 and others relating to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 vide order dated 13.01.2017 and also in Swami Vivekanand Vidyalaya Vs. DCIT(CPC)-TDS (supra) and Medical Superintendant Rural Hospital Vs. ACIT (CPC)-TDS in ITA Nos.2072 2073/PUN/2017, order dated 21.12.2017, which has been relied upon by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee. 13. The Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India (supra) had also laid down similar proposition that the amendment to section 200A of the Act w.e.f. 01. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 substitution made by clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under Section 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest. 14. The Hon ble High Court thus held that where the impugned notices given by Revenue Department under section 200A of the Act were for the period prior to 01.06.2015, then same were illegal and invalid. Vide para 27, it was further held that the impugned notices under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised by charging late filing fees under section 234E of the Act is not valid and the same is deleted. 17. Before parting, we may also refer to the order of CIT(A) in relying on the decision of Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in Rajesh Kourani Vs. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that the issue is settled in favour of assessee by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India (supra). Since we have already relied on the said ratio laid down by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka, the CIT(A) has mis-referred to both decisions of Hon ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon ble High Court of Gujarat; but the CIT(A) has failed to take into consideration the settled law that where there is difference of opinion between different High Courts on an issue, then the one in favour of assessee needs to be followed as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. M/s. Vegetable Products Ltd. (supra), in the absence of any decision rendered by the jurisdictional High Court. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia Vs. Union of India (2015) 54 taxmann.com 200 (Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer on 09-06-2017. The assessee filed an appeal against the dismissal of the rectification application filed under section 154 of the Act. The said fact is clear from the perusal of Form No.35 with special reference to Column 2(a) and 2(b). In the entirety of the above said facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the order of CIT(A) in the case of Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, Surgana in dismissing the appeal in-limine being filed beyond the period of limitation. We have already decided the issue on merits in favour of assessee. 20. We have already decided the issue on merits in favour of assessee. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee in all appeals are allowed. 3. The Revenue could not file any case law to the contrary except Rajesh Kourani Vs. Union of India (supra) which already stands considered in the foregoing discussion. We, accordingly, accept the assessee s identical sole substantive ground in all these appeals. The impugned late filing fees sum(s) stands deleted. 4. Mr. Jasnani vehemently argued that these assessees section 154 rectification are not maintainable since time barred. We do not see any merit in R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
