TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also heard along with appeals of assessee. 3. The assessee in ITA No.1423/PUN/2018, relating to assessment year 2013-14 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- There is a technical problem in submission of FVU File, if any correction in Challan details carried out by Assessing Officer. In our case there was a mismatch in TAN shown by bank in Challan. The correction made by Assessing Officer is not being reflecting on OLTAS (Online Tax Accounting System) portal of tax information network. Due to this "CSI" file is not being generated and consequently the "FVU" file also not validating, which is required for submission of data to TIN NSDL, the agenet of Income Tax Department. The CIT, Appeal-1, Aurangabad in their order no ABD/CIT(A)-1/TDS/302/2015016, DT.22/06/2018 agree with the above technical problem for which the assessee aggrieved, even though the appeal dismissed for the reason that the initiate action for correction in Challan details was delayed. Sir, the ground considered for disallowing is not proper because so many efforts taken for correction in challan details with local authorities / with bank but nobody was responded, this is the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umbers by almost two years and relying on the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Shree Narayana Guru Smaraka Sangam Upper Primary School Vs. Union of India/DCIT, CPC, Ghaziabad in WP(C) No.30229 of 2013, dated 14.12.2016, the CIT(A) held that by incorporating section 234E of the Act late fees had become mandatory and could not be quashed by considering it as reasonable cause as provided in section 273B of the Act. Hence, appeal of assessee was dismissed. 6. The assessee is in appeal against order of CIT(A). 7. The first plea raised by assessee is the reasonable cause in the case and second plea raised by assessee is the jurisdictional issue of Assessing Officer having no power to charge late fees under section 234E of the Act as the amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act took place from 01.06.2015. 8. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand, strongly placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue raised in the present appeal is against late filing charges under section 234E of the Act while issuing intimation under section 200A of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....abad, relating to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 for the respective quarters deliberated upon the issue and held as under:- "34. Accordingly, we hold that the amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act is procedural in nature and in view thereof, the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all these appeals does not stand and the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section 234E of the Act is not valid and the same is deleted. The intimation issued by the Assessing Officer was beyond the scope of adjustment provided under section 200A of the Act and such adjustment could not stand in the eye of law." 12. The said proposition has been applied in the next bunch of appeals with lead order in Vidya Vardhani Education and Research Foundation in ITA Nos.1887 to 1893/PUN/2016 and others relating to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 vide order dated 13.01.2017 and also in Swami Vivekanand Vidyalaya Vs. DCIT(CPC)-TDS (s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondent-Revenue that insertion of clause (c) to (f) under Section 200A(1) should be treated as retroactive in character and not prospective. 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. 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 any deductor has already paid the fee after intimat....