Tribunal rules Assessing Officer lacked authority pre-01.06.2015. Appeals granted, section 234E demands dismissed. Intimation under section 200A appeals maintainable.

The tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer lacked authority to impose fees under section 234E before 01.06.2015. Consequently, the appeals were granted, and the demands under section 234E were dismissed. Additionally, the tribunal deemed appeals against the intimation issued under section 200A maintainable, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision. The tribunal emphasized the prospective application of amendments, citing the presumption against retrospective legislation unless explicitly stated, and referenced a Supreme Court decision regarding the retrospective application of tax amendments.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in Filing Appeals
2. Charging of Fees under Section 234E
3. Maintainability of Appeals
4. Retrospective vs. Prospective Application of Amendments

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Appeals:
There was a delay of 3 days in filing appeals in certain cases (ITA No.1337/PN/2015 to ITA No.1339/PN/2015). The tribunal condoned the delay after considering the condonation petition and admitted the appeals for adjudication.

2. Charging of Fees under Section 234E:
The core issue was whether fees under section 234E could be charged prior to the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) of the Act, which came into effect on 01.06.2015. The tribunal noted that the amendment was not retrospective and the Assessing Officer did not have the power to levy fees under section 234E while processing TDS returns before 01.06.2015. The tribunal held that the enabling provision to charge fees under section 234E was introduced only from 01.06.2015 and could not be applied retrospectively.

3. Maintainability of Appeals:
The tribunal addressed whether appeals against intimations issued under section 200A of the Act were maintainable. It was held that such intimations were indeed appealable under section 246A of the Act, as they were deemed notices of payment under section 156 of the Act. The tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s finding that no appeal was maintainable against the intimation issued under section 200A.

4. Retrospective vs. Prospective Application of Amendments:
The tribunal emphasized that the amendment to section 200A(1) by the Finance Act, 2015, which enabled the computation of fees under section 234E, was prospective and applicable from 01.06.2015. The tribunal relied on the principle that unless a contrary intention appears, legislation is presumed not to have retrospective operation. The tribunal also referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., which held that amendments beneficial to taxpayers are applied retrospectively, but not those that impose a new burden.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E while processing TDS returns prior to 01.06.2015. The appeals filed by the assessees were allowed, and the demands raised under section 234E were deleted. The tribunal also held that appeals against such intimations were maintainable and reversed the CIT(A)'s findings on this issue.

---