Tribunal rules Assessing Officer cannot impose late fees for TDS statements filed pre-01.06.2015

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not impose late fees under section 234E for TDS statements filed before 01.06.2015, as the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) was prospective. Relying on prior High Court decisions, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessees, invalidating the late fee charges and allowing the appeals.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals before CIT(A).
2. Chargeability of late fees under section 234E of the Act prior to the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) of the Act effective from 01.06.2015.
3. Validity of the CIT(A)'s reliance on various High Court decisions and the subsequent upholding of the Assessing Officer's order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Appeals Before CIT(A):
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on the grounds of significant delays in filing. However, it was noted that the appeals were against the orders passed under section 154 of the Act, not the original intimation issued under section 200A. The delay was considered less than a year, and the Tribunal deemed it fit to condone the delay. The CIT(A) had also decided the issue on merits, allowing the Tribunal to proceed with the merits of the case.

2. Chargeability of Late Fees Under Section 234E Prior to Amendment:
The core issue was whether late fees under section 234E could be charged for periods prior to 01.06.2015, before the amendment to section 200A(1)(c). The Tribunal referred to various decisions, including the Karnataka High Court in Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI, which held that the amendment to section 200A effective from 01.06.2015 was prospective and not applicable to periods before this date. The Tribunal consistently followed this view, stating that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge late fees under section 234E for periods before the amendment.

3. Validity of CIT(A)'s Reliance on High Court Decisions:
The CIT(A) relied on decisions from the Rajasthan High Court and the Gujarat High Court, which upheld the constitutional validity of section 234E. However, the Tribunal noted that these decisions did not address the specific issue of the amendment's prospective effect. The Tribunal emphasized the principle that in cases of differing High Court opinions, the view favoring the assessee should be followed, as held by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to levy late fees under section 234E for TDS statements filed for periods before 01.06.2015. The amendment to section 200A(1)(c) was prospective and could not be applied retrospectively. Consequently, the demand raised by charging late fees under section 234E was invalid and deleted. The appeals were allowed in favor of the assessees.

---