Tribunal Upholds Jurisdiction for Levy of Fees under Section 234E

The Tribunal held that the Assessing officer had jurisdiction to levy fees under section 234E from 01.06.2015 onwards, despite the period to which the return pertained. The officer was deemed competent to charge fees since the TDS statement was filed in 2017. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the officer lacked authority to levy fees before 01.06.2015, upholding the levy of fees under section 234E from that date until the actual filing of the TDS statement, partially allowing the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the order u/s 200A dated 09.05.2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 (1st Qtr)
2. Challenge to the demand of &8377; 47,000/- under section 234E of the Act

Issue 1: Validity of the order u/s 200A dated 09.05.2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 (1st Qtr)

The appeal was filed against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 09/05/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 (1st Qtr). The ld. AR submitted that the TDS return was filed for the 1st quarter of F.Y. 2013-14 on 11th October, 2017, and a penalty of &8377; 47,000/- was imposed under section 234E by the ld. ACIT - TDS. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating that the adjustment made under section 200(A)(1)(c) in respect of the fee levied u/s 234E was valid. The AR challenged this, arguing that the amendment to S. 200A(1) w.e.f. 01.06.2015 impacted the jurisdiction of the concerned officer. The AR contended that prior to this amendment, there was no authority to levy fees under section 234E. The AR cited various cases to support this argument.

Issue 2: Challenge to the demand of &8377; 47,000/- under section 234E of the Act

The AR emphasized that the amendment in Section 200A of the Act w.e.f. 1.06.2015 conferred the competence to charge fees under section 234E, indicating that prior to this amendment, the Assessing officer lacked the authority to levy such fees. The AR argued that interpreting otherwise would apply a prospective enactment retrospectively, which is impermissible. The AR relied on several cases to support the contention that the Assessing officer was not empowered to levy fees for the period before 01.06.2015. The DR, however, argued that the ACIT-TDS was within jurisdiction to levy late filing fees under section 234E.

The Tribunal noted that the amendment to section 200A is prospective, and prior to 01.6.2015, the Assessing officer did not have the power to charge fees under section 234E. The Tribunal held that the Assessing officer was within jurisdiction to levy fees under section 234E since the TDS statement was filed in 2017 and processed thereafter. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the officer lacked the authority to levy fees for the period before 01.6.2015. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized that the officer had jurisdiction to levy fees from 01.06.2015 onwards, regardless of the period to which the quarterly return pertained. The Tribunal upheld the levy of fees under section 234E from 01.06.2015 to the date of actual filing of the TDS statement, partially allowing the appeal.

---