TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1424
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal:- ITA No. 2129/Ahd/2016 "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the 2nd ground of appeal before him challenging the validity of the impugned order u/s. 154. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the Ld. Assessing Officer had power to make adjustment u/s.234E, as per amended provisions of section 200A of the Income Tax Act, vide impugned Intimation u/s.154, and on that ground in confirming the levy of fees u/s.234E." 3. There are 15 appeals filed by the assessee pertaining to levy of fees u/s. 234E for delay in filing quarterly statements of deduction of taxes u/s. 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has also provided copies of judicial pronouncements relied upon by him in the following cases:- i) Vipul Forms & Graphics Pvt. Ltd. dated 13-12-2017 of ITAT 'C' Bench. ii) EPT Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad v. DCIT, CPC, TDS Gaziabad dated 24/07/2017 passed by the SMC Bench of ITAT, Ahd. iii) Wonder Waves Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad dated 14-10-2015 passed by the SMC 'B' Bench, ITAT, Ahd. The ld. counsel has submitted that the impugned demand was raised u/s. 234E of the act vide intimation dated 3rd Sep, 2014 whereas the provision of section 200A of the act did not authorize the officer to levy fees u/s. 234E of the act. On the other hand, the ld. departmental representative supported the order of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribed u/s. 234E could be levied even without a regulatory provision being found in section 200A for computation of fees. We have noticed that rule 31A of IT rule laid down the time limit for filing quarterly statement for deduction of tax u/s. 200(3) of the act. Section 234F prescribes the charging of fees for every day default in filing of statement u/s. 200(3) of the act or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206 of the act. Section 200A pertained to processing of statement of tax deducted at source and prior to 01-06-2015 this provision did not include any reference of the fees payable u/s. 234E of the act. W.e.f. 1st June, 2015, this provision specifically provides for computing fees payable u/s. 234E of the act. The hon'ble juris....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provide for charging of fee for late filing of the statements. Such fee would be levied at the rate of Rs. 200/- for every day of failure subject to the maximum amount of tax deductible or collectible as the case may be. Section 271H was also introduced for the first time for levying penalty for failure to furnish the statements. Such penalty would be in the range of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1 lakh. No penalty would be imposed if the tax is deposited with fee and interest and the statement is filed within one year of the due date. With addition to these two provisions prescribing fee and penalty respectively, clause (k) of sub-section (2) of section 272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nature. With effect from 01.06.2015, this provision specifically provides for computing the fee payable under section 234E of the Act. On the other hand, section 234E is a charging provision creating a charge for levying fee for certain defaults in filing the statements. Under no circumstances a machinery provision can override or overrule a charging provision. We are unable to see that section 200A of the Act creates any charge in any manner. It only provides a mechanism for processing a statement for tax deduction and the method in which the same would be done. When section 234E has already created a charge for levying fee that would thereafter not been necessary to have yet another provision creating the same charge. Viewing section 200A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this situation also would be obviated. Even prior to 01.06.2015, it was always open for the Revenue to calculate fee in terms of section 234E of the Act. The Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra) held that section 200A was not merely a regulatory provision, but was conferring substantive power on the authority. The Court was also of the opinion that section 234E of the Act was in the nature of privilege to the defaulter if he fails to pay fees then he would be rid of rigor of the penal provision of section 271H of the Act. Wi....