Prospective application of section 200A bars section 234E late fee for pre-01.06.2015 TDS statements, with delay not defeating jurisdictional challenge.

Late fee under section 234E could not be levied through processing under section 200A for TDS statements relating to periods before 01.06.2015, because the amendment enabling such computation was prospective. The levy for FY 2012-13 was therefore beyond legal authority and was directed to be deleted. Where the challenge went to the jurisdiction to impose the fee, delay in filing the first appeal should not have prevented examination on merits. Relief was accordingly available to the assessee, and the connected appeals were decided in its favour.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether late fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could be levied through processing under section 200A for TDS statements relating to a period prior to 01.06.2015. (ii) Whether the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) ought to have been condoned where the challenge went to the jurisdiction to levy the fee.

Issue (i): Whether late fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could be levied through processing under section 200A for TDS statements relating to a period prior to 01.06.2015.

Analysis: The amendment to section 200A enabling computation of fee for late filing was treated as prospective from 01.06.2015. For TDS statements pertaining to FY 2012-13 and filed before that date, the levy was held to be beyond authority in law. In the presence of divergent High Court views, the interpretation favourable to the assessee was followed.

Conclusion: The levy of late fee under section 234E for the period prior to 01.06.2015 was invalid and was directed to be deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) ought to have been condoned where the challenge went to the jurisdiction to levy the fee.

Analysis: The challenge was based on absence of jurisdiction to impose the fee. In such matters, procedural delay could not defeat relief when the underlying levy itself was held unsustainable. The appeal was therefore required to be examined on merits despite the delay.

Conclusion: The delay should not have barred adjudication on merits, and relief was available to the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The common order granted relief to the assessee in all six connected appeals by setting aside the levy of late fee for the relevant pre-01.06.2015 period.

Ratio Decidendi: A late fee under section 234E could not be sustained for TDS statements relating to periods prior to 01.06.2015 when the machinery provision for such computation under section 200A was prospective, and a jurisdictional challenge of that kind should not be defeated merely by delay.

---