9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the extent of Rs.38,400/-. While processing statement of TDS in respect of Q3 of FY 2012-13. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer failed to note that clause (c) of Section.200A(1), Which authorizes the Assessing Officer to charge fee U/S.234E while processing the statement of TDS was introduced by the Finance Act, 2015 W.e.f. 01.08.2015. 2.1 The learned Assessing Officer failed to note that in view of the said amendment, the levy of fee U/S.234 E for purposes of sec.200Aeffect from 01.08.2015 and does not apply to quarterly statements of earlier periods. 2.2 T he Seamed Assessing Officer failed to note that prior to 01-06-2015 there was no enabling provision U/S 200A of the Act for raising a demand towards fee LI/8 234 E. 2.3 The le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fate U/s 234E, like non-payment of self-assessment tax & interest along with return U/s 139(1) treats an income tax return as defective U/s.139(9) of the Act. 9. Sec. 201(2) of the act states that if a person has failed to deposit tax and interest then it shall be a charge upon all the asset of that person, so it also not cover/recover late fee if no deposited along with TDS statement 10. The Learned Assessing Officer failed to take note of decisions of 1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, CHENNAI 1. Smt.G.Indhirani VS The Deputy Commissioner of income Tax, CPC- TDS- Ghaziabad, (ITA No.1019, 1020& 1021 /Mds/2015) 2. M/s.Rajaguru Spinning Mills Ltd VS The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC- TDS- Ghaziabad IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal is not an intentional and deliberate one. 13. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary and/or withdraw any or a!! of the aforesaid grounds of or at time of hearing of the above appeal. In view of the foregoing grounds and such others that may be urged before the honourable Income -Tax Appellate Tribunal at the time of hearing, your appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered. 3. The assessee field an affidavit with a request to condone the delay. We find that the delay was mainly because of pandemic. Hence, delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, this case is decided based on the merits of the case with the help of ld.DR. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of fee underSection 200A which has been brought about with effect from1.6.2015 cannot be said as only by way of a regulatory modeor a regulatory mechanism but it can rather be termed asconferring substantive power upon the authority. It is truethat, a regulatory mechanism by insertion of any provisionmade in the statute book, may have a retroactive characterbut, whether such provision provides for a mere regulatorymechanism or confers substantive power upon the authoritywould also be a aspect which may be required to beconsidered before such provisions is held to be retroactive innature. Further, when any provision is inserted for liability topay any tax or the fee by way of compensatory in nature orfee independently simultaneously mode ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00A can be read as having prospective effect andnot having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, thedemand under Section 200A for computation and intimationfor the payment of fee under Section 234E could not be madein purported exercise of power under Section 200A by therespondent for the period of the respective assessment yearprior to 1.6.2015. However, we make it clear that, if anydeductor has already paid the fee after intimation receivedunder Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit thedeductor to reopen the said question unless he has madepayment under protest." 14. The Hon'ble High Court thus held that where the impugnednotices given by Revenue Department under section 200A of theAct were for the period prior t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 234E of theAct for the period of tax deducted prior to 1st day of June, 2015.The same cannot be charged by issue of notices after 1st day ofJune, 2015 even where the returns were filed belatedly by thedeductor after 1st June, 2015, where it clearly related to theperiod prior to 01.06.2015. 16. We hold that the issue raised in the present bunch of appealsis identical to the issue raised before the Tribunal in differentbunches of appeals and since the amendment to section 200A ofthe Act was prospective in nature, the Assessing Officer whileprocessing TDS returns / statements for the period prior to01.06.2015 was not empowered to charge late filing fees undersection 234E of the Act, even in cases where such TDS returnswere filed belatedly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
