9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs of the Ld. Revenue Authorities invoking the provisions of section 234E in order to levy late fee for default in furnishing the TDS statement beyond the stipulated time is in accordance with law and accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee are hereby dismissed. Since the period under consideration is the 1st Quarter of FY 2014-15 ie., prior to the amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act wherein clause (c) was inserted w.e.f 01/06/2015 and the assessee had already deposited the tax at source prior to the amendment to section 200A(1), the levy of late fee u/s. 234E for default in furnishing the statement beyond the stipulated time is not sustainable in law. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the judgment in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi [ 2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] , in the case of United Metals [ 2021 (12) TMI 1349 - KERALA HIGH COURT] and the levying of late fee u/s 234E for the period prior to 1/6/2015 is not sustainable in law. Thus, in the instant case since the period of default was before the said date ie., 01/06/2015, there is no merit in charging late filing fee u/s. 234E of the Act. Accordingly the Ld. AO is directed to delete the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1961. 2. There was a reasonable cause on the part of the appellant Educational Society which resulted in delay in filing the TDS statement and therefore, the levy of late fee would cause genuine hardship to the assessee and hence the same ought to have been deleted. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal. 5. The brief facts of the case are that for the FY 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 relevant to the AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 2017-18, the assessee has filed TDS Quarterly returns in Form No.24Q and 26Q beyond due date specified under the Act. Subsequently, the Ld. AO assessed TDS quarterly returns filed by the assessee and passed intimation orders U/s. 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 2017-18 and levied late filing fee U/s. 234E of the Act on account of delayed filing of the TDS returns for the AYs under consideration. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) belatedly beyond the prescribed time limit specified under the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed petitions explaining the belated filing of the TDS returns with a prayer for condonatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DS) reported in [2022] 137 taxmann.com 115 (Kerala); decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, Nashik vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad in ITA Nos. 651 to 661/Pun/2018, dated 25/10/2018. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the decision of the Ld. Revenue Authorities may be set-aside and the assessee may be granted relief by deleting the late fee levied U/s. 234E of the Act. 7. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative heavily relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities specifically with respect to the levy / imposition of late fee u/s. 234E of the Act by the Ld. AO. It is the submission of the Ld. DR that since the assessee filed its TDS statements beyond the stipulated time as per the TDS provisions, late fee was levied on account of default in furnishing the statements beyond the prescribed time limit under the Act. The Ld. DR further submitted that the fee charged U/s. 234E is not in lieu of penalty as the fee charged under section 234E is not in the nature of penalty and is a fee which the deductor shall be liable to pay in the event of delay in filing the TDS statements as prescribed. The Ld. DR further subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als. 9. In the present case, to file the TDS return for the FY 2014- 15, Quarter-1 relevant to the AY 2015-16 is 30/06/2014 but the assessee filed the return on 27/11/2015. In our considered view since the enabling provision for computation of fee while processing the statements was inserted in section 200A only w.e.f 1/6/2015 and therefore, the charging section i.e., section 234E cannot be enforced to the cases prior to 1/6/2015. Further, we are of the view that the amended provision applies for all the returns pertaining to the period after 1/6/2015 and not for the returns pertaining to the period prior to 01/06/2015 notwithstanding the fact that the returns pertaining to the period prior to 01/06/2015 were filed after 01/06/2015 or processed after 01/06/2015. 10. The Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka) observed that one may at the first blush say that, since the section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered the statement/s of TDS within the prescribed time. But section 234E cannot be read in i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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. 11. Further, the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of United Metals vs. ITO (TDS) reported in [2022] 137 taxmann.com 115 (Kerala) observed as under: Amendment in section 200A by way of incorporating sub-clause (c) to clause (f) whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed. 15. With respect to ITA Nos.191, 192 193/Viz/2022, the grounds of appeal as well as the issue raised in these three appeals are identical to that the of the grounds and the issue raised in the appeal ITA No. 190/Viz/2022 , which is adjudicated in the above paragraphs of this order, our decision given thereof mutatis mutandis applies to the present appeals (ITA Nos. 191, 192 193/Viz/2022) also. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. 16. In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. I.T.A. Nos. 194, 195, 196 197/Viz/2022 (AYs 2016-17 2017-18) 17. This appeal filed by the assessee is against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dated 04/08/2022 for the AY 2016-17 2017-18 arising out of the order passed u/s. 200A of the IT Act, 1961, dated 15/02/2018 15/12/2018. 18. The crux of the issue involved in this appeal is whether the return pertaining to the period prior to 01/06/2015 but filed after 01/06/2015 and processed after 01/06/2015 attract the amended provisions of section 200A read with section 234E inserted w.e.f 01/06/2015 which is a specific provision for levy of fee for default in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
