TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in levying fee u/s.234E through an intimation u/s.200A of the ITA, 1961 for a period prior to 01/06/2015. The learned I-T Authorities ought to have appreciated that levy of fees u/s.234E of the ITA, 1961 was not permissible adjustment contemplated u/s.200A of the ITA, 1961 for the period prior to 01/06/2015." For the sake of convenience, first we would take up ITA No.2018/PUN/2017, assessment year 2013-14 for adjudication as lead case. ITA No.2018/PUN/2017 (A.Y.2013-14) (Q4-24Q) 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its TDS quarterly statement of 24Q and 26Q for different quarters and therefore, it was delayed filing of TDS return which are as follows: A.Y Type of return Date of original order of CPC Date of order u/s.154 Amount (Rs.) 2013-14 24Q-2 26.12.2013 13.02.2016 53,420 2013-14 24Q-3 26.12.2013 13.02.2016 30,240 2013-14 24Q-4 21.11.2016 --------- 53,680 2013-14 26Q-2 26.12.2013 13.02.2016 20,200 2013-14 26Q-3 26.12.2013 13.02.2016 8,060 The ACIT, CPC, Ghaziabad processed the return and sent intimation u/s.200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts about the decisions of various Hon'ble High Courts, including Hon'ble Kerala High Court, in the case of Narath Mapila LP School Vs Union of India [WP (C) 31498/2013(J)], Hon'ble Karanataka High Court in the case of Adithya Bizor P Solutions Vs Union of India [WP No. 6918-6938/2014(T-IT), Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Om Prakash DhootVs Union of India [WP No. 1981 of 2014] and of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant KundaliaVs Union of India [WP No. 771 of 2014], granting stay on the demands raised in respect of fees under section 234E. The full text of these decisions were not produced before us. However, as admittedly there are no orders from the Hon'ble Courts above retraining us from our adjudication on merits in respect of the issues in this appeal, and as, in our humble understanding, this appeal requires adjudication on a very short legal issue, within a narrow compass of material facts, we are proceeding to dispose of this appeal on merits. 5. We may produce, for ready reference, section 234E of the Act, which was inserted by the Finance Act 2012 and was brought into effect from 1st July 2012. This statutory provision is as follows: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, him under clause (c); and (e) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (c) shall be granted to the deductor: Provided that no intimation under this sub-section shall be sent after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed. Explanation : For the purposes of this sub-section, "an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the statement" shall mean a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the statement- (i) of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such statement; (ii) in respect of rate of deduction of tax at source, where such rate is not in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (2) For the purposes of processing of statements under sub-section (1), the Board may make a scheme for centralised processing of statements of tax deducted at source to expeditiously determine the tax payable by, or the refund due to, the deductor as required under the said subsection. 7. By way of Finance Act 2015, and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e from, the tax deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at that point of time. 10. In view of the above discussions, in our considered view, the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope of permissible adjustments contemplated under section 200A. This intimation is an appealable order under section 246A(a), and, therefore, the CIT(A) ought to have examined legality of the adjustment made under this intimation in the light of the scope of the section 200A. Learned CIT(A) has not done so. He has justified the levy of fees on the basis of the provisions of Section 234E. That is not the issue here. The issue is whether such a levy could be effected in the course of intimation under section 200A. The answer is clearly in negative. No other provision enabling a demand in respect of this levy has been pointed out to us and it is thus an admitted position that in the absence of the enabling provision under section 200A, no such levy could be effected. As intimation under section 200A, raising a demand or directing a refund to the tax deductor, can only be passed within one year from the end of the fina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecisions cited by the ld. AR. The only issue arising out of all these appears is as to at what point of time chargeability of levying fees can be done even prior to the amendment was effected i.e.1.06.2015. We observe that in the case of G. Indrani(supra.), the ITAT Chennai Bench has held that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision of section 200A of the Act for making adjustment in respect of the statement filed by the assessee with regard to tax deducted at source by levying fee under section 234E of the Act. The Assessing Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in levying fee u/s.234E of the Act while processing the statement and made adjustment u/s.200A of the Act which is not justified. Thus while processing statement under section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot make any adjustment by levying fee under section 234E prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the considered opinion that the fee levied by the Assessing Officer under section 234E of the Act while processing the statement of tax deducted at source was beyond the scope of adjustment provided under section 200A of the Act and deleted the same the eye of law. 11. The Amrits....