2017 (5) TMI 407 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules Assessing Officer cannot charge fees under section 234E for TDS statements filed pre-01.06.2015

Shailendra Nathulal Patni, Prop. Jalgaon Gas Agency Versus DCIT, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, ruling that the Assessing Officer could not charge fees under section 234E for TDS statements filed before 01.06.2015. ... Levy of fee payable u/s.234E - intimation u/s.200A - default in furnishing the TDS statements - Held that:- As decided in Maharashtra Cricket Association Vs. DCIT(CPC)-TDS, Ghaziabad [2016 (10) TMI 104 - ITAT PUNE] the amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act is procedural in nature and in view thereof, the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was 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. - Decided in favour of assessee Issues Involved:1. Delay in filing appeals and condonation of delay.2. Levy of fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act.3. Authority of the Assessing Officer to charge fees under section 234E while processing TDS statements under section 200A.4. Retrospective or prospective application of the amendment to section 200A.Detailed Analysis:1. Delay in Filing Appeals and Condonation of Delay:The assessee filed a single appeal against the consolidated order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal against six intimations. Upon realizing the need to file six separate appeals, the assessee filed them, resulting in a delay of 344 days. The Tribunal found the delay to be technical and not intentional, thus condoning the delay and admitting the appeals for adjudication.2. Levy of Fee Under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act:The core issue was the levy of fees under section 234E for late filing of TDS statements. The assessee argued that since the amendment to section 200A(1) inserting clause (c) was effective from 01.06.2015 and was not retrospective, fees under section 234E could not be charged for TDS statements filed before this date. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the amendment was not clarificatory or retrospective, thus fees under section 234E could not be charged for periods before 01.06.2015.3. Authority of the Assessing Officer to Charge Fees Under Section 234E While Processing TDS Statements Under Section 200A:The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 200A and 234E, noting that prior to the amendment effective from 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer did not have the authority to charge fees under section 234E while processing TDS statements. The Tribunal cited previous decisions, including those from the Coordinate Bench and other High Courts, supporting the view that the authority to charge such fees was only granted prospectively from 01.06.2015.4. Retrospective or Prospective Application of the Amendment to Section 200A:The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 200A(1) by the Finance Act, 2015, which enabled the computation of fees under section 234E, was prospective. The Tribunal referenced the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2015, and judicial precedents, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., to conclude that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively. This meant that any intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A before 01.06.2015 could not include fees under section 234E.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals, ruling that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E for TDS statements filed before 01.06.2015. The intimation issued under section 200A in all appeals was deemed invalid, and the demand raised by charging fees under section 234E was deleted. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with the principles of statutory interpretation and judicial precedents, ensuring that the amendment to section 200A was applied prospectively.