Late Fees under Section 234E Not Applicable Before 01.06.2015

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, ruling that late fees under Section 234E could not be imposed for periods before 01.06.2015. The intimation issued under Section 200A for those periods was deemed invalid. The amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was considered prospective, leading to the appeals being allowed based on these findings. The Tribunal's decision aligned with precedents from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, emphasizing the prospective nature of the legislative amendment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A).
2. Charging of late fees under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for periods prior to the amendment effective from 01.06.2015.
3. Validity of intimation issued under Section 200A for charging late fees.
4. Applicability of the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) effective from 01.06.2015.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Appeals Before the CIT(A):
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to the delay in filing. The appeals were against orders passed under Section 154 of the Act, dated 09.04.2018, except for the appeals relating to Assessment Year 2015-16, which were filed in time. The appeals were filed before the CIT(A) in March 2019, resulting in a delay of less than a year. The Tribunal deemed it fit to condone this delay, emphasizing that the appeals were not against the original intimation but against the order passed under Section 154.

2. Charging of Late Fees Under Section 234E for Periods Prior to 01.06.2015:
The primary issue was whether late fees under Section 234E could be charged for TDS statements filed for periods before 01.06.2015. The Tribunal noted that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) effective from 01.06.2015 was not retrospective. The Tribunal referred to the Karnataka High Court's decision in Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI, which held that the amendment was prospective and not applicable to periods prior to 01.06.2015. Consequently, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods before the amendment.

3. Validity of Intimation Issued Under Section 200A for Charging Late Fees:
The Tribunal examined whether the intimation issued under Section 200A for charging late fees under Section 234E was valid. It was established that the machinery provisions for charging such fees were inserted only with effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, any intimation issued for periods before this date was not valid. The Tribunal referenced multiple decisions, including those of the Delhi Tribunal and the Pune Bench, which consistently held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015.

4. Applicability of the Amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) Effective from 01.06.2015:
The Tribunal analyzed whether the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was clarificatory or prospective. The Tribunal concluded that the amendment was prospective, as it provided new enabling powers to the Assessing Officer to charge late fees. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., which stated that legislation is presumed to be prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. The Tribunal also referred to the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2015, which clarified that the amendment was intended to be prospective.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that late fees under Section 234E could not be charged for periods prior to 01.06.2015. The intimation issued under Section 200A for such periods was deemed invalid. The amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was held to be prospective, and the appeals were allowed on these grounds. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with the principles laid down by various High Courts and the Supreme Court.

---