9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter cannot be regarded as a mistake of law per se, justifying rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. Reference in this context may also be made to the decision in CIT v. Aruna Luthra [ 2001 (8) TMI 84 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] We are, therefore, not in agreement with the ld. CIT(A), who has distinguished the former decision as well as in Laxmndas Bhatia Hingwala Pvt. Ltd [ 2010 (12) TMI 105 - DELHI HIGH COURT] cited before him by the assessee, as being in respect of the power u/s. 254(2) of the Act. His reliance for the purpose on the decision in the case of CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd. [ 2000 (12) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] and CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. [ 1997 (8) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] , is misplaced. The same stand pursued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment to section 200A(1) of the Act by insertion of clause (c) thereto by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, enabling processing of levy of fees under section 234E(1) of the Act (brought on statute w.e.f. 01.07.2012), reading as under: - Processing of statements of tax deducted at source. 200A. (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source or a correction statement has been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 200, such statement shall be processed in the following manner, namely:- . (a) . (b) . (c) the fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E; (d) . (e) . Provided that no i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd), referred to in the assessee s written submissions, clarified in no uncertain terms that the said amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act is prospective in nature, so that the said power was not available to the assessing authority prior to 01.6.2015. We are conscious that section 200A is procedural in nature, so that amendment thereto would have effect from the date of amendment. Accordingly, processing u/s. 200A(1) could thus validly be made qua fee u/s. 234E w.e.f. 01/6/2015. It is trite law that there is no vested right in procedure (CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup Sons [1994] 210 ITR 886 (SC)), which would therefore apply to pending matters, i.e., outstanding as on the date of amendment, even if it relates to a period prior thereto. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 to 23 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra), the last, as under, concluding it s findings, at para 6.1 of the Judgment, it expresses it s agreement therewith at para 6.2: 23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid. Paras 21 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra) specifically hold that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect as it confers a substantive power on the AO and is not merely a r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty to issue notice, hear the writ petitioner, and pass orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. It thus stands sufficiently clarified by it that no late filing fee could be levied per a processing u/s. 200A(1) for any period prior to 01.6.2015. The TDS returns in the instant case are themselves filed after 01/6/2015; rather, being so only in view of the law, w.e.f 01/10/2014, enabling so by providing for filing of a correction statement. And, therefore, could be processed only subsequent to 31/5/2015, after which date the power of determining the levy u/s. 234E while processing the return is available. That would however not impact the ratio of the decision by the Hon ble jurisdictional H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e., in relation to orders u/s. 254(1) of the Act by the Appellate Tribunal, the same being a statement of law, would apply equally to rectification of a mistake u/s. 154, which is well-settled could be of fact or law or both. Reference in this context may also be made to the decision in CIT v. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (P H)(FB). We are, therefore, not in agreement with the ld. CIT(A), who has distinguished the former decision as well as in Laxmndas Bhatia Hingwala Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2011] 330 ITR 243 (Del)(FB), cited before him by the assessee, as being in respect of the power u/s. 254(2) of the Act. His reliance for the purpose on the decision in the case of CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd. [2001] 249 ITR 304 (SC) and CIT v. Hero ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
