TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 664
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S 234E is without authority of law. 2. The appellant submits that the amendment made under section 200A which has come into effect on 1-6-2015 has prospective effect. Hence, no computation of fee under section 234E can be made in the intimation U/S 200Al154 for the period prior to 1-6-2015. 3. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A/154 cannot stand and the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section 234E is not valid and requires to be deleted. It is submitted that the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer was beyond the scope of adjustment provided under section 200Al154. 4. The appellant relies on the following decisions in this regard: * Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India, [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka) * Smt. G. Indhirani v.Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, CPC-TDS, Uttar Pradesh, [2015] 60 taxmann.com 312 (Chennai - Trib.) * Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (CPC)-TDS, Ghaziabad, [2016] 74 taxmann.com 6 (Pune -Trib.) 5. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of favourable decisions in the event of contradicting de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atement within one year from the time prescribed for submission of the said statement. To put it in other words, for failure to submit the statements, the penalty provided under s. 271(l)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-s. (3) of s. 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under s, 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under s. 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-s. (3) of s. 271H. It can also be said that when the Parliament intended to insert the provisions of s. 234E providing for fee simultaneously the utility of such fee was for conferring the privilege to the defaulter-deductor to come out from the rigors of penal provision of s. 271H. Be it recorded that, prior to s. 271H of the Act inserted in the statute book, the enforceability of requirement to file return under s. 200(3) and s. 206C(3) was by virtue of s. 272A(2)(k) of the Act which provided for the penalty of Rs. 100 per day for each day of default in filing TDS statements. But, when s. 234E was inserted w.e.f. 1st July, 2012 simultaneously, a second proviso was added under s. 272A(2) w.e.f. 1st July, 2012....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection for the failure referred to in cl. (k), if such failure relates to a statement referred to in sub-s. (3) of s. 200 or the proviso to sub-s. (3) of s. 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after"the 1st day of July, 2012. ........" 18. The aforesaid shows that in the cl. (k) if the said failure relates to a statement referred to in sub-s. (3) of s. 200 or the sub-s. (3) of s. 206C, no penalty shall be imposed for TDS after 1st July, 2012. 19. Hence, it can be said that, the mechanism provided for enforceability of s. 200(3) or 206C(3) for filing of the statement by making it penal under s. 272A(2)(k) is done away in view of the insertion of s. 271H providing for penal provision for such failure to submit return. When the Parliament has simultaneously brought about s. 234E, s. 271H and the aforesaid proviso to s. 272A(2), it can be said that, the fee provided under s. 234E is contemplated to give a privilege to the defaulter to come out from the rigors of penalty provision under s. 271H(l)(a) if he pays the fee within one year and complies with the requ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....34E. 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 cl. (c) to (f) under s. 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 cl. (c) to (f) of sub-s. (1) of s. 20QA can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under s. 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under s. 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under s. 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective assessment year prior to 1st June, 2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under s. 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payment of fee under s. 234E, the appellant-petitioners would not press the challenge to the constitutional validity of s. 234E of the Act. But, they submitted that the question of constitutional validity of s. 234E may be kept open to be considered by the Division Bench and the judgment of the learned Single Judge may not conclude the constitutional validity of s. 234E of the Act. 26. Under these circumstances, we find that no further discussion would be required for examining the constitutional validity of s. 234E of the Act. Save and except to observe that the question of constitutional validity of s. 234E of the Act before the Division Bench of this Court shall remain open and shall not be treated as concluded''. and even the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal had followed the above decision in the case of Shri. G.Radhakrishnan vs. DCIT, in ITA No.526/CHNY/2018, dated 30.07.2018, wherein it was held as follows: "3. None was present for the assessee, however, it has filed a written submission, wherein, it has submitted that the E-TDS statement should be processed u/s. 200A(1)(C) which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 only. According to ....