TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 249
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 2. With the consent of both the parties, appeal in ITA No. 988/JP/2019 was taken as the lead case for the purposes of present discussion wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The impugned order u/s 200A dated 09.05.2019 is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be quashed. 2. Rs. 72,470/-: The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the demand raised by the ACIT, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad/ ITO (TDS), on account of the impugned late filing levy u/s 234E of Rs. 72,470/- for 2nd Quarter. The demand so raised is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lling prior to amendment made to S. 200A(1) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015., while processing the TDS return. Firstly, Section 200A of the Act which was inserted by Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1-4-2010. Thereafter, S. 234E of the Act, was introduced by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1-7- 2012. Thereafter, the aforesaid amendment was made by inserting clause (c) in S. 200A(1) w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Since the period involved in all the above appeals, relating to which, the impugned fee is under challenge, fall prior to 01.06.2015 hence the validity of assumption of jurisdiction by the concerned officer is under challenge. 5. It was submitted by the ld AR that from a perusal of Section 200A and the others, it can be clearly seen fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T 174 ITD 252 (JP) (2019) and Station Headquarters (Army) & Ors. Vs. ACIT 200 TTJ (Jd) 1 (2019). 7. The ld. DR is heard who has submitted that the assessee has filed the quarterly TDS return sometime in year 2017 which is well after amendment to the provisions in section 200A w.e.f 01.06.2015 and thereafter an intimation has been issued by ACIT-TDS on 4th December, 2017 u/s 200A of the Act imposing the late filing fees u/s 234E of the Act. It was accordingly submitted that the ACIT-TDS was well within jurisdiction to levy late filing fees and there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the said levy and accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) should be confirmed. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and purus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it will result in creating two classes of assessees who for the same default will suffer different penal consequences leading to unintended class discrimination which cannot be the intention of the legislature in absence of anything contrary provided under the statute. The Co-ordinate Bench (speaking through one of us) had an occasion to examine similar issue in case of Shri Uttam Chand Gangwal, Ajmer vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad (ITA No. 764/JP/2017 dated 23/01/2019) wherein it was held as under: "8. In the instant case, the assessee filed its TDS return in Form No. 26Q for the quarter ended 31st March, 2015 on 22nd July, 2015 and the same was processed and an intimation dated 30 July, 2015 was issued by the AO u/s 200A of the Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re could not be any levy of fees as the assumption of jurisdiction to levy such fees have been held by the Courts to be prospective in nature. However, where the delay continues beyond 1.06.2015, the AO is well within his jurisdiction to levy fees under section 234E for the period starting 1.06.2015 to the date of actual filing of the TDS return. In light of the same, in the instant case, the levy of fees under section 234E is upheld for the period 1.06.2015 to the date of actual filing of the TDS return which is 22.07.2015 and the balance fee so levied is hereby deleted. In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed." In the instant case, as well, there is a continued default beyond 1.06.2015, therefore, following the a....