TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 455
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s) has erred in confirming the action of the Dy.Comm.of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad, U.P. in passing intimation order u/s.200A of the I.T. Act, 1961 without giving show cause notice to the appellant. Hence the order so passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant being against the principles of natural justice requires to be quashed. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the Charging of Rs. 510/- for the interest on alleged late payment of TDS and Rs. 17,061/- for the alleged late filing fees u/s.234E of the I.T.Act, 1961 by the Dy.CIT, Centralized Processing Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad,d U.P. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal. 3. Grounds Nos.1 to 3 are inter-connected and, therefore the same are decided together. 3.1. Brief stated facts are that while generating initiation u/s.200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act) levied penalty u/s.234-E of the Act for late filing of TDS return vide order dated 19th May-2014. Aggrieved by this action, assessee pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of Narath Mapila LP School Vs Union of India [WP (C) 31498/2013(J)], Hon'ble Karanataka High Court in the case of Adithya Bizor P Solutions Vs Union of India [WP No. 6918-6938/2014(T-IT), Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Om Prakash Dhoot Vs Union of India [WP No. 1981 of 2014] and of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia Vs Union of India [WP No. 771 of 2014], granting stay on the demands raised in respect of fees under section 234E. The full text of these decisions were not produced before us. However, as admittedly there are no orders from the Hon'ble Courts above retraining us from our adjudication on merits in respect of the issues in this appeal, and as, in our humble understanding, this appeal requires adjudication on a very short legal issue, within a narrow compass of material facts, we are proceeding to dispose of this appeal on merits. 5. We may produce, for ready reference, section 234E of the Act, which was inserted by the Finance Act 2012 and was brought into effect from 1st July 2012. This statutory provision is as follows: 234E. Fee for defaults in furnishing statements (1) Without prejudice to the prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(c); and (e) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (c) shall be granted to the deductor: Provided that no intimation under this sub-section shall be sent after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed. Explanation : For the purposes of this sub-section, "an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the statement" shall mean a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the statement- (i) of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such statement; (ii) in respect of rate of deduction of tax at source, where such rate is not in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (2) For the purposes of processing of statements under sub-section (1), the Board may make a scheme for centralised processing of statements of tax deducted at source to expeditiously determine the tax payable by, or the refund due to, the deductor as required under the said subsection. 7. By way of Finance Act 2015, and with effect from 1st June 2015, there is an amendment in Section 200A and this amendment, as stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10. In view of the above discussions, in our considered view, the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope of permissible adjustments contemplated under section 200A. This intimation is an appealable order under section 246A(a), and, therefore, the CIT(A) ought to have examined legality of the adjustment made under this intimation in the light of the scope of the section 200A. Learned CIT(A) has not done so. He has justified the levy of fees on the basis of the provisions of Section 234E. That is not the issue here. The issue is whether such a levy could be effected in the course of intimation under section 200A. The answer is clearly in negative. No other provision enabling a demand in respect of this levy has been pointed out to us and it is thus an admitted position that in the absence of the enabling provision under section 200A, no such levy could be effected. As intimation under section 200A, raising a demand or directing a refund to the tax deductor, can only be passed within one year from the end of the financial year within which the related TDS statement is filed, and as the related TDS statement was filed on 19th February 2014,....