TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1318
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2018 is the appeal directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2(i/c), Madurai in ITA No.159/2016-17 dated 28.11.2017, ITA No.458/Chny/2018 is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-2(i/c), Madurai in ITA No.211/2016-17, ITA No.459/Chny/2018 is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-2(i/c), Madurai in ITA No.210/2016-17, and ITA No.460/Chny/2018 is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-2(i/c), Madurai in ITA No.209/2016-17, all dated 28.11.2017 for assessment year 2013- 14. 2. None represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar represented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. As all these four appeals of different assessees....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... I, 06-08-2018. APPELLANT." It was a submission that the assessee has relied upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. G.Indhirani Vs.DCIT in ITA Nos.1019 to 1021/Mds./2015 dated 10.07.2015 wherein it has been held that the ld. Assessing Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in levying fee u/s.234E of the Act while processing the statement and making adjustment u/s.200A of the Act for assessment year 2013-14. It was open to the ld. Assessing Officer to pass a separate order u/s.234E of the Act levying fee provided the limitation for such a levy did not expire. 5. On the other hand, ld.D.R placed before us copy of the order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani Vs. Union of Indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Section 200A would merely regulate the manner in which the computation of such fee would be made and demand raised. In other words, we cannot subscribe to the view that without a regulatory provision being found for section 200A for computation of fee, the fee prescribed under section 234E cannot be levied. Any such view would amount to a charging section yielding to the machinery provision. If at all, recasted clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A would be in nature of clarificatory amendment. Even in absence of such provision, as noted, it was always open for the Revenue to charge the fee in terms of section 234E of the Act. By amendment, this adjustment was brought within the fo1d of section 200A of the Act This would have one....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x with fee and interest is paid. The additional condition being that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date." It was a submission that levy of fee u/s.234E was liable to be upheld. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani Vs. Union of India dated 20.06.2017 referred to supra clearly shows that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was deciding the issue as to the effect of the amendment to Section 234E with effect from 01.06.2015. It was not dealing levy of interest u/s.234E of the Act for the period before the amendment. However, a perusal of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Smt. G.Indhirani Vs.DCIT referred to supr....