TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1455
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, there was delay in filing of the return and, accordingly, demand notices were issued u/s. 200A of the Act for the above three quarters calling upon the assessee to pay late filing fee under section 234E of the Act of Rs. 10,490/- for 1st quarter, Rs. 4,700/- for 3rd quarter and Rs. 15,400/- for 4th quarter. 3. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the DCIT (TDS), (CPC), Bangalore by observing as under: "The provisions of section 234 E was always there for levy of fees for late filing of TDS return. It is a fact that section 234 E was made a part of amended section 200 A w.e.f. 1st June, 2015. But the fact still remains that late filing fee u/s.234 E is leviable and in the present case, the same have been levied. Writing it under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ile processing u/s 200A of the Act. Therefore, prior to that date i.e. .2015, the AO had no authority to levy fee u/s 234E of the Act. Therefore, according to the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, that the AO erred in levying the fee u/s 234E of the Act which been wrongly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) need to deleted. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT(DR) contended that the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. Union of India 62 taxmann.com 310 (Punjab & Haryana) has taken a view which is in favour of the Revenue. On a query from the bench as to whether the jurisdictional High Court i.e. Hon'ble Orissa High Court has passed any orders in respect to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le issuing intimation u/s 200A does not have the authority under law, to make any order u/s 243E of the Act and was pleased to delete the order of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held as follows In para 22 to 24 which is reproduced as under: 22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Under the circumstances, we find that substitution made by clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2015 is held to be having prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for the fee under Section 234E could be made for the TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent-authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent." 8. We take note that the facts of the aforesaid case and the facts before us are similar. Only after 01.06.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act while processing the statement under section 200A of the Act and not before. Therefore, respectfully relying the order of the Hon'bl....