TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Ld. CIT (Appeals) for the respective assessment years captioned hereinabove. These cases were heard together due to commonness of the facts and issues. These cases are being disposed of in this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the facts, figures and the grounds for the assessee is considered. The ground for the said assessee (M/s. Vishwas Power Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd.) is extracted as under :- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case learned CIT(A) erred in confirming fees levied U/S 234E by the Assessing Officer." A. Preliminary Issue - Condonation of Delay 2. At the very outset, we notice that some of the appeals are time barred by 3 days. The assessee filed an affidavit along with condonation of delay petition. We have gone through the condonation petition as well as the affidavit and have found that reasons specified therein are justified and that the delay cannot be attributed to the deliberate conduct of the assessee neither through intention nor through action. The reasons for delay in filing the appeals late were beyond the control of the assessee and even the Ld. DR stated that he has no objection, if the delay is condoned. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation on the issue i.e. if the Assessing Officer has power to levy the late filing fees when the assessee files the TDS statement for the quarters filing upto 01.06.2015. However, there is no dispute about the non-availability of such powers for the quarter related to the period later to 01.06.2015. 7. During the time of argument before us, on the issue of notice u/s 234E of the Act, which is different from the levy of fee at the time of processing of TDS statements, Mr. Atal, ld. Counsel, mentioned that the officers of the Department have started issuing notices independently under the provisions of section 234E of the Act and, for that, the Department relies on the decision of Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. G. Indhirani vs. DCIT vide ITA Nos.1019 to 1021/Mds/2015 and others dated 10.07.2015. Referring to the contents of para 8 to 11 of the said decision in the case of Smt. G. Indhirani (supra) where the Tribunal obliquely referred to the availability of powers independently for collecting the said late filing fees in case of belated TDS statements, ld. Counsel mentioned that the said decision of the Tribunal (supra) was pronounced prior to the Hon'ble Karnatak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 (Pune - Trib) and referred to Para Nos.15 & 16 and submitted that the demand of late fee is not maintainable even if the returns of the TDS were filed after 01.06.2015, the order charging late filing fee was passed after 01.06.2015. He argued that the factual circumstances are similar to the present case, the assessee filed TDS statements belatedly after 01.06.2015 and the ACIT, (CPS-TDS) charged late fee u/s 234E of the Act after 01.06.2015. The Ld. D.R. did not controvert the same. 8. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. We find the issue raised in the present appeal is similar to the issue raised by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, DOBI BK(supra), wherein the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal held that charging of late fee u/s 234E of the Act is not maintainable even if the assessee files TDS returns belatedly and the Assessing Officer issues intimation u/s 200A of the Act after 01.06.2015 charging late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of Shri Kishore Phadke, Ld.A.R. and the imposition of late fee u/s 200A r.w 234E of the Act confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....valid and the same is deleted." C. Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India, (Karnataka-HC) dated 26.08.2016 : 73 taxmann.com 252 "24. If the facts of the present cases are examined in light of the aforesaid observation and discussion, it appears that in all matters, the intimation given in purported exercise of power under Section 200A are in respect of fees under Section 234E for the period prior to 1.6.2015. As such, it is on account of the intimation given making demand of the fees in purported exercise of power under Section 200A, the same has necessitated the appellant-original petitioner to challenge the validity of Section 234E of the Act. In view of the reasons recorded by us hereinabove, when the amendment made under Section 200A of the Act which has come into effect on 1.6.2015 is held to be having prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for the fee under Section 234E could be made for the TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondentauthority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are....