Independent appealability and pre-01.06.2015 234E levy through section 200A were rejected, deleting the fee demand.

Rectification orders issued under section 154 read with section 200A were treated as independently appealable orders, so the limitation-based rejection of the appeals was not sustained. The article also states that 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 enabling machinery under section 200A(1)(c) came into force only from that date and was not retrospective. The impugned fee demand was therefore held unsustainable and was directed to be deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeals against the rectification orders under section 154 read with section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were barred by limitation and not maintainable as independent appeals. (ii) Whether late fee under section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be levied for TDS statements pertaining to periods prior to 01.06.2015 when the enabling machinery under section 200A(1)(c) was not then in force.

Issue (i): Whether the appeals against the rectification orders under section 154 read with section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were barred by limitation and not maintainable as independent appeals.

Analysis: The rectified orders constituted appealable orders and the challenge was not confined only to the original intimations. The view that the subsequent rectification did not give rise to a fresh cause of action was held to be unsustainable. The time-bar finding was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The limitation-based dismissal was set aside and the appeals were held to be maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether late fee under section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be levied for TDS statements pertaining to periods prior to 01.06.2015 when the enabling machinery under section 200A(1)(c) was not then in force.

Analysis: The fee under section 234E could not be computed through processing under section 200A for periods prior to 01.06.2015 because the enabling machinery provision was inserted only with effect from that date. The amendment could not be applied retrospectively, and the levy for the earlier period was held unsustainable.

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

Final Conclusion: The common orders of the first appellate authority were set aside, and relief was granted to the assessee by deleting the impugned fee demand.

Ratio Decidendi: A fee under section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be levied through processing under section 200A for periods prior to 01.06.2015 in the absence of an enabling machinery provision, and a rectification order challenging such levy is independently appealable.

---