Tax Tribunal Rules Late Fees Invalid for Pre-Amendment Statements, Upholds Prospective Application of Sec 200A Amendment.

The ITAT allowed the appeals filed by the assessees, ruling that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of late fees under section 234E for statements processed under section 200A before the amendment effective from 01.06.2015. The Tribunal directed the Revenue authorities to delete the fees, concluding that the amendment to section 200A was prospective and not retroactive. The decision was consistent with prior judicial precedents favoring the assessees. The order was pronounced on 19.03.2020.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Revenue authorities were justified in levying late fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act while processing the statement of tax deducted at source under section 200A of the Act before the amendment effective from 01.06.2015.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background:
The appeals were filed by the respective assessees against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], challenging the levy of late fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act. The issue was whether such fees could be levied while processing the statement of tax deducted at source under section 200A of the Act before the amendment effective from 01.06.2015.

2. Facts:
The assessees failed to file the statement of tax deducted at source within the prescribed due date. Consequently, the Revenue authorities levied late fees under section 234E while processing the statement under section 200A. The assessees contended that before the amendment effective from 01.06.2015, the Revenue authorities did not have the power to levy such fees.

3. Assessees' Arguments:
The assessees' counsels argued that the issue is covered in their favor by various decisions of the Coordinate Bench, including:
- Mentor India Limited vs. DCIT
- Sudershan Goyal vs. DCIT (TDS)
- State Bank of India, Gwalior vs. CIT(A)
- State Bank of India, Genda Chowk and others vs. DCIT(TDS)
- M/s. Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Ltd. & others
- Bhupesh Kumar J. Sanghvi & others
- Indore School of Social Work & others

They cited the judgments of the Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi vs. UOI and the Gujarat High Court in Rajesh Kaurani vs. UOI, and emphasized the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., which mandates following the interpretation that favors the assessee when there is a split in judicial opinion.

4. Revenue's Arguments:
The Departmental Representative failed to counter the submissions made by the assessees' counsels effectively.

5. Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal examined the rival contentions and the records. It noted that the issue had been consistently adjudicated in favor of the assessees by various benches of the Tribunal, including the Indore Bench in the cases of State Bank of India, Genda Chowk and others, and M/s. Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Ltd. & others. The Tribunal observed that the amendment to section 200A of the Act, which allowed for the levy of fees under section 234E, was prospective from 01.06.2015. Therefore, no fees could be levied for statements processed before this date.

6. Legal Precedents:
The Tribunal relied on several judicial precedents, including:
- Fatehraj Singhvi vs. UOI (Karnataka High Court)
- CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (Supreme Court)
- Sudarshan Goyal vs. DCIT (TDS) (Agra Bench)
- Mentor India Ltd. vs. DCIT (Jaipur Bench)

These precedents held that the amendment to section 200A was prospective and not retroactive, thus supporting the assessees' position.

7. Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of late fees under section 234E for statements processed under section 200A before 01.06.2015. It directed the Revenue authorities to delete the fees in all the appeals.

8. Final Order:
The appeals filed by the assessees were allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 19.03.2020.

---