AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 99
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der. 2. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that in all the three appeals, the only issue involved is whether the fee as prescribed u/s 234E could be levied in intimation u/s 200A for the default in furnishing e-TDS statement for the period prior to 1st June, 2015. 2.1 It was submitted that Amritsar Bench of the ITAT has decided this issue in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Limited Vs. DCIT(TDS) in ITA No.90/Asr/2015 vide order dated June 09, 2015 & according to the findings of the ITAT, prior to 1st June, 2015, there was no enabling provisions therein for raising a demand in respect of levy of fees u/s 234E & levy of fees u/s 234E was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments contemplated u/s 200A. 2.2 It was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amendment to section 200A with effect from 1-6-2015 is prospective in nature, Assessing Officer while processing TDS returns for period prior to 1-6-2015 was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E by way of intimation issued under section 200A in respect of defaults before 1-6-2015. It has been further held in the above said Judgement of the Pune bench that where there is difference of opinion between different High Courts on an issue, then the one in favour of assessee needs to be followed as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vegetable Products Ltd. (supra), in the absence of any decision rendered by the jurisdictional High Court. Para No.17 of this judgment is reproduced below for the sake of quick reference:- "Be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the period prior to 01.06.2015." 2.4 It was further submitted that the issue is covered by the orders of the Pune bench in the case of ITAT Maharashtra Cricket Association v. Dy. CIT [2016] 74 taxmann.com 6 (Pune-Trib.) & Vidya Vardhani Education & Research Foundation v. Dy. CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 894 (Pune-Trib.) 2.5 It was accordingly submitted that in view of the above stated facts & law since there is no judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on this issue but the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Pune Bench of the ITAT & Jurisdictional Bench have decided this issue in favour of the assessee, the case of the assessee is covered by the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 26Q) for the fourth quarter of financial year 2012-13 on 26.12.2012 and the same was processed and intimation under section 200A was issued vide order dated 15.12.2013 much prior to the amendment to section 200A of the Act w.e.f. 1.6.2015 empowering the Assessing officer levying the fees under section 234E of the Act. It is therefore not a case of continuing default where the assessee has defaulted in furnishing the TDS statement even after 1.6.2015 and thereafter, the demand for payment of fees under section 234E has been raised by the Assessing officer. In case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that the provisions of amended section 200A are prospective in nature. Further, the decision of the Hon'ble ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 31st March, 2015 on 12th September, 2015 and the same was processed and an intimation dated 18th September, 2015 was issued by the AO u/s 200A of the Act. Thus, both the filing of the return of income by the assessee and processing thereof has happened much after 1.6.2015 i.e, the date of assumption of jurisdiction by the AO u/s 200A(1)(C) to levy fees under section 234E of the Act. Even though the quarterly return pertains to quarter ended 31.3.2015, the fact remains that there is a continuing default even after 1.6.2015 and the return was actually filed on 12.09.2015. The said provisions cannot be read to say that where an assessee file his return of income for the period falling after 1.6.2015 and there is a delay on his part to file t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the ground of appeal is partly allowed." 8. In light of aforesaid two decisions, what need to be examined in the instant case is the time of the filing of the TDS returns and whether it is a case of continued default even after the period starting 1.6.2015 empowering the Assessing officer to levy the fees under section 234E of the Act. The undisputed facts which are emerging from the records is that the TDS return (Form 24Q) for the 4th quarter of financial year 2012-13 was filed by the assessee on 31.05.2013 and the same was processed and intimation under section 200A was issued on 18.08.2013 much prior to the amendment to section 200A of the Act w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Similarly, in respect of appeal no. 17/ASR/19, the TDS return (Form 24Q)....