TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 697
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the ACIT, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad and thereby confirming the levy of late fee u/s 234E of Rs. 43,920/- in the intimation generated u/s 200A passed in respect of the TDS statement filed in Form 24Q for Quarter 1 of A.Y.2014-15. 2] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the levy of late fee u/s 234E in the intimation u/s 200A passed against the TDS statement filed for the period prior to 01.06.201.5 was bad in law in view of the binding decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT Pune in the case of Gajanan Constructions & Ors. v. DCIT [161 ITD 313) dated 23.09.2016 and Maharashtra Cricket Association v. DCIT [ITA No.560/PN/2016] dated 21.09.2016 and hence, the late fee u/s 234E levied in the instant case ought to have been deleted. 3] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the levy of late fee u/s 234E in the intimation u/s 200A was contrary to the law laid down by Jurisdictional Tribunal which was binding on the lower authority as per the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Baroda v. H.C. Shrivastava [256 ITR 385] and thus, the ACIT had in turn not followed the law laid down by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court while levying t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perintendent Rural Hospital in ITA Nos.651/PUN/2018 to 661/PUN/2018 and Junagade Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos.1018/PUN/2018 to 1028/PUN/2018, order dated 25.10.2018. The relevant findings of Tribunal are as under:- "11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue arising in the present bunch of appeals is against levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act while issuing intimation under section 200A of the Act, in the first bunch of appeals. The second bunch of appeals in the case of Junagade Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. is against order of Assessing Officer passed under section 154 of the Act rejecting rectification application moved by assessee against intimation issued levying late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act. The case of assessee before us is that the issue is squarely covered by various orders of Tribunal, wherein the issue has been decided in respect of levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act, in the absence of empowerment by the Act upon Assessing Officer to levy such fees while issuing intimation under section 200A of the Act. The Tribunal vide order dated 21.09.2016 with lead order in ITA Nos.560/PN/201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry mechanism by insertion of any provision made in the statute book, may have a retroactive character but, whether such provision provides for a mere regulatory mechanism or confers substantive power upon the authority would also be a aspect which may be required to be considered before such provisions is held to be retroactive in nature. Further, when any provision is inserted for liability to pay any tax or the fee by way of compensatory in nature or fee independently simultaneously mode and the manner of its enforceability is also required to be considered and examined. Not only that, but, if the mode and the manner is not expressly prescribed, the provisions may also be vulnerable. All such aspects will be required to be considered before one considers regulatory mechanism or provision for regulating the mode and the manner of recovery and its enforceability as retroactive. If at the time when the fee was provided under Section 234E, the Parliament also provided for its utility for giving privilege under Section 271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act relating to the period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015 were not maintainable and were set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. In view of said proposition being laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka (supra), there is no merit in observations of CIT(A) that in the present case, where the returns of TDS were filed for each of the quarters after 1st day of June, 2015 and even the order charging late filing fees was passed after June, 2015, then the same are maintainable, since the amendment had come into effect. The CIT(A) has overlooked the fact that notices under section 200A of the Act were issued for computing and charging late filing fees under section 234E of the Act for the period of tax deducted prior to 1st day of June, 2015. The same cannot be charged by issue of notices after 1st day of June, 2015 even where the returns were filed belatedly by the deductor after 1st June, 2015, where it clearly related to the period prior to 01.06.2015. 16. We hold that the issue raised in the present bunch of appeals is identical to the issue raised before the Tribunal in different bunches of appeals and since the amendment to section 200A of the Act was prospectiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, 2013 and July, 2014. The CIT(A) while computing delay had taken the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act as the basis, whereas the assessee had filed appeals before CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) had noted that rectification application was filed in February, 2018 which was rejected by CPC on the same day. The CIT(A) was of the view that there was no merit in condonation of delay, wherein appeals were filed beyond the period prescribed. The assessee had filed appeals against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, hence the time period of appeals filed by assessee before the CIT(A) have to be computed from the date of order passed under section 154 of the Act and not from the date of issue of intimation. Thus, there is no merit in the order of CIT(A) in dismissing the appeals of assessee on this issue. 19. We find similar issue has been decided by us in the case of Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital Vs. ACIT(CPC)-TDS (supra) and vide para 15, order dated 21.12.2017 it was held as under:- "15. Further, before parting, we may also refer to the order of the CIT(A) in these two appeals. The CIT(A) had dismissed th....