TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13 on 05.07.2016, the CPC-TDS has sent an intimation u/s 200A of the I.T.Act vide order dated 08.07.2016. In the said intimation, late filing fee u/s 234E of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs. 2,07,965 was levied. 4. Aggrieved by the order imposing fee u/s 234E of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed levy of fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follow:- "The Appellant filed quarterly return for Q4 in form 24Q for FY 2012-13 belatedly on 05.07.2016. As per provisions of section 234E of the Act, CPC has levied the late filing fee of Rs. 2,07,970. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant could....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that imposition of Section 234E for the Assessment Years prior to 01.06.2015 is illegal and invalid. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in not following the ratio laid down by Bangalore Tribunal in a case with similar factual matrix in the case of Manoj Kumar Jaiswal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,CPC-TDS,Ghaziabad [2019] 104 taxmann.com 372 in which Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) stating that no computation of fee for delay filing of TDS return while processing TDS returns under section 234E could be made for Assessment Years prior to 01.06.2015. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. At the very outset, I noticed that the issue raised in this appeal is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Sarala Memorial Hospital v. ITO (TDS) in WP(C) No.37775 of 2018 (judgment dated 18th December, 2018). The Hon'ble High Court had held that fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act could not have been computed for assessment prior to 01.06.2015. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble High Court reads as follow:- "9. Interpreting Section 200A and Section 234E, the Karnataka High Court has held in Fatheraj that when the statue confers no express power under section 200A before 01.06.2015 on the authority either to compute and collect any fee under section 234E, the demand for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 234E is the charging provision creating a charge for levying fee for certain defaults in filing the statements. Under no circumstances a machinery provision can override or overrule a charging provision. Section 200A does not create any charge in any manner. It only provides a mechanism for processing a statement for tax deduction and the method in which the same would be done. When Section 234E has already created a charge for levying fee that would thereafter not have been necessary to have another provision creating the same charge. Viewing Section 200A as creating a new charge would bring about a dichotomy. In plain terms, the provision is a machinery provision and at best provides for a mechanism for processing and computing besid....