2018 (2) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming levy of late filing fee of Rs. 39, 400/-under section 234E of the IT Act. 2. The assessee has every right to make, add, delete, modify or alter any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. Briefly stated facts, insofar as this appeal is concerned, are that the assessee is an individual and deducted TDS of Rs. 57,474/- on the interest payment of Rs. 1,86,000/-to a non- resident namely Manohar Assandas as on 21/10/2013, that TDS so deducted was deposited to the Central government account on 21/10/2013, that the TDS return which was due to be filed on or before 15/01/2014 was filed by the assessee on 31/07/2014, that the return of TDS so filed was accepte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng statements. On a careful reading of the material papers on record we found that the facts involved in this matter are similar to the facts involved in the case of Gajanan Constructions vs DCIT (supra) and M/s Samikaran Learning Private Limited (supra) wherein also the assessee has challenged the power of the officer to charge/collect fee as per the provision of section 234E, whether vested prior to substitution of clause (c) to section 200A of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01/06/2015 and enabling provision in section 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act. In the latter decision a coordinate bench of this tribunal thoroughly considered the scope of section 200 A of the Act, in the light of the dec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the case of Vegetable Products (88 ITR 192)(SC), the view, which favors the assessee has to be followed. The issue before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia (supra) was with respect to constitution validity of the section introduced by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01/06/2015 but was not abreast of the applicability of section 234E of the Act by the AO while processing TDS statement. So far as, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court is concerned, it was held that 'intimation raising demand prior to 01/06/2015, u/s 200A of the Act, levying fee u/s 234E, is not valid'. In the light of Gajanan Constructions vs DCIT (supra), it was hold that amendment in section 200A(1) of the Act is procedural in nature, ther....