Court rules late fee notices invalid pre-2015, deletes late fee under section 234E.

The case involved the issue of late fee under section 200A of the Income Tax Act for delayed filing of TDS statements. The Karnataka High Court ruled that the amendments were prospective, making notices for late filing fee before 01.06.2015 invalid. In line with the Supreme Court's precedent, the Tribunal favored the assessee, deleting the late fee under section 234E and allowing the appeals.

---

---

Issues:
Late fee u/s 200A for delay in filing TDS statements, applicability of fee u/s 234E, retrospective or prospective nature of amendments, conflicting decisions by High Courts.

Late Fee u/s 200A:
The cases involved the issue of late fee u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the delay in filing quarterly TDS statements. The ACIT/ITD(TDS- CPC) issued notices for payment of late fee for various financial years. The First Appellate Authorities held that the fee was leviable u/s 200A for filing returns.

Applicability of Fee u/s 234E:
The provisions of 200A(1)(c) inserted by the Finance Act 2015 were examined. The absence of machinery provisions to charge late fee u/s 200A led to the examination of the levy of fee u/s 234E introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The issue of its applicability, whether retrospective or prospective, was considered.

Retrospective or Prospective Nature of Amendments:
The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that the amendments brought in w.e.f. 01.06.2015 were prospective. It ruled that notices issued u/s 200A for late filing fee u/s 234E relating to the period before 01.06.2015 were not maintainable. In contrast, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decided against the assessee in a similar case.

Conflicting Decisions by High Courts:
Considering conflicting decisions by different High Courts, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Vegetable Products Limited case, stating that the view favoring the assessee should be followed in such situations. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the late fee levied u/s 234E should be deleted, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed.

---