TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITA Nos.808 to 823/Ind/2017, ITA No. 879, 880 & 882/Ind/2017, ITA No. 885 to 890/Ind/2017, ITA No. 897 to 904/Ind/2017 & ITA No. 906/Ind/2017, ITA No.907/Ind/2017, ITA No. 909 to 918/Ind/2017, ITA No.858/Ind/2017, ITA No. 863 & 864/Ind/2017, ITA No. 865/Ind/2017, ITA No. 866/Ind/2017, ITA No. 867 to 869/Ind/2017, ITA Nos. 870 to 872/Ind/2017, ITA Nos. 873 & 874/Ind/2017, ITA Nos. 875 & 876/Ind/2017, ITA No. 878/Ind/2017, ITA No. 919/Ind/2017, ITA No. 920/Ind/2017 AND ITA Nos. 877 And 921/Ind/2017 M/s. Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Ltd., Women Industrial Training Institute, Supreme Colour Rooking and Decking Pvt. Ltd., State Resque Home, Indore, Principal health & Family Welfare Training Centre, Indore, M/s. Superintending Engineer Idore, M/s. Superintending Working Women Hostel Indore, Sub Divisional Officer Agriculture Sub Division, Dhar, M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khsetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd., M/s. Office of Superintending Engineer O & M Circle, Badwani, Office of the Project Administrator Command Area Dev & Water Management cel. Indore, Office of Executive Engineer, Indore, Mohd Qamar Thussain Pragati Steel, Indore, M/s Madhya Pradesh Paschim Khsetra Vidyut Co. Ltd. O & M Circle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax deducted at source prepared u/s 200A of the Act. Against the levy of late fee u/s 234E in the statement processed u/s 200A of the Act, appeal was preferred by the assessee(s) for respective quarters for the respective assessment years before Ld. CIT(A) pleading that before the amendment was brought in by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the revenue authorities were not having the powers to levy the late fees u/s 234E of the Act in the statement processed u/s 200A of the Act. 5. However, assessee failed to succeed in all these 135 appeals before Ld. CIT(A) and now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the above referred common issue. 6. At the outset, Shri Sumit Nema, Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that the common issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the following decisions of the Coordinate Bench: 1. Mentor India Limited vs. DCIT (ITANo.738/JP/2016 order dated 16.12.2016) 2. Sudershan Goyal vs. DCIT (TDS) (ITANo.442/Agra/2017 order dated 09.04.2018) 3. State Bank of India, Gwalior vs. CIT(A) (ITANo.03/Ag/2018 order dated 31.05.2018.) 4. State Bank of India, Genda Chowk and others vs. DCIT(TDS), (ITANos. 727 & 737/In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the above issue we find that the same has been adjudicated by us in the case of State Bank of India, Genda Chowk and others dated 13.11.2018(supra) after examining similar facts as well as various judicial pronouncements. The revenue authorities failed to controvert the contention of Ld. counsel for the assessee that the common issue raised in all these bunch of 135 appeals is squarely covered in favour of assessee by the decision in the case of State Bank of India, Genda Chowk and others dated 13.11.2018(supra) authored by us. Relevant portion of the decision given by us in the case of State Bank of India, Genda Chowk and others dated 13.11.2018 (supra) reads as follows: 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The common issue raised in all these bunches of appeals is that whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act in the statement of tax deducted at source processed u/s 200A of the Act, even when the amendment brought in the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 paved the way for levying the fee u/s 234E of the Act in the statement processed u/s 200A of the Act. 10. We find that the abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to be followed. It has so been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.', 88 ITR 192 (SC). It is also not a case where the decision against the assessee has been rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court qua the assessee. 5. In 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others' (supra) it has been held, inter alia, as follows: "22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, I.T.A No. 442/Agra/2017 & S.A. No. 01/Agra/2018 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. Resultantly, the demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under Section 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. However, we make it clear that, if a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one through the orders of the authorities below. We have also gone through the case laws relied upon by the ld. Counsel. We find merit into the contention of ld. Counsel that he jurisdictional High Court has decided the validity of section 234E, but has not decide the issue of power of AO for levy of tax under section 234E in the judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan and Others (supra) as relied by ld. CIT (A). We have considered the recent decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shri Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors (supra) wherein the issue of levy of fees u/s 234E on statements processed u/s 200A before 01.06.2015 has been categorically discussed by the Hon'ble High Court and in para 24 of the said order it was held that "no demand for fee u/s 234E can be made in intimation issued for TDS deducted u/s 200A before Geeta Star Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 01.06.2015". We have also gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed in detail the general principle of concerning retrospectively and held that unless contrary intent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC). In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (supra), the demand so raised are directed to be deleted. Similarly identical findings have also been given in all the appeals of other assessment years." 13. We further find that the Coordinate Agra Bench in the case of State Bank of India, Gwalior (supra) again decided in favour of the assessee by following the decision in case of Sudarshan Goyal(supra) observing as follows: 8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing the mechanism for processing a TDS statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustment. The Ld. CIT(A) has further held that this decision was delivered after considering numerous ITAT and High Court decisions and therefore th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision and others to the same effect have been taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court while passing 'Rajesh Kaurani' (supra). However, while observing so, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to take into consideration the settled law that where there is a cleavage of opinion between different High Courts on an issue, the one in favour of the assessee needs to be followed. It has so been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.', 88 ITR 192 (SC). It is also not a case where the decision against the assessee has been rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court qua the assessee. 5. In 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others' (supra) it has been held, inter alia, as follows: "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 retroact....