TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1807
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paid a sum of Rs. 32,40,000/- on 05/09/2013 to HSIIDC after the allotment of the land. According to the Assessing Officer the assessee was required to deduct TDS @ 1% from the said payment and deposit the same with the Central Government. The assessee was not aware of the amended provisions which came into force from 01/06/2013 and as such did not comply the same, however during the course of audit of accounts, discrepancy was apprised to the assessee who immediately deposited the amount of Rs. 32,400/- alongwith the interest due thereon amounting to Rs. 6,804/- on 31/10/2014 when the relevant Form No. 26QB was uploaded. Accordingly the Assessing Officer issued an intimation under section 200A of the Act to the deductor, being late filing free under section 234E of the Act and a demand of Rs. 32,400/-, Rs. 18,690/- and Rs. 16,990/- for the F.Y. 2013-14, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively were raised. 5. Being aggrieved the assesee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and furnished the written submission which has been incorporated in para 6 of the impugned order for the cost of repetition the same is not reproduced herein. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.06.2015, since the amendment is only of clarificatory nature. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that the assessee deducted the TDS and deposited the same alongwith interest, however there was delay in furnishing of statement in Form no. 26QB but the same was prior to the insertion of the enabling Section 200A of the Act with effect from 01/06/2015. It was further submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the following decision of the ITAT: * M/s GNA Udyog Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT, CPC, TDS Ghaziabad in ITA NO. 126 to 133/ASR/2017 dt. 15/01/2019 (Asr Trib.) * Meghna Gupta Vs. Asstt. CIT, CPC-TDS,Ghaziabad [2018] 99 taxmann.com 334(Delhi Trib) * Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital , DOBI BK Vs. DCIT, CPC(TDS),Ghaziabad [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78 (Pune-Trib) 9. In her rival submissions Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 10. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully gone through the material available on record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has been adjudicated by various Benches of the ITAT. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. It was observed by the Tribunal that as the amendment made under Sec.200A was effective from 01.06.2015 and applicable prospectively, hence no computation of fee under Sec.234E could be made for the TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015. 7. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and finding ourselves as being in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Tata Rice Mills (supra), hence are of the considered view that the ACIT-TDS, CPC Ghaziabad in the case before us had erred in levying fees under Sec.234E in respect of tax deducted at source for the four quarters prior to 01.06.2015 in respect of A.Y. 2015-16. We thus not being persuaded to subscribe to the view taken by the CIT(A) who had upheld the levy of fees by the A.O, thus set aside his order and vacate the demand raised by the A.O under Sec.234E in the hands of the assessee for all the four quarters for the year under consideration. Similarly in the case of Meghna Gupta Vs. Asst. CIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad(supra) it has been held as under: 6.1 Fee for default u/s 234E provides that, when a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed u/s 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... previous period or previous year prior to 1.6.2015 could not have been made." Thus, we hold that no fee was leviable to the assessee u/s 234E in violation of section 200(3), because assessee had furnished the statement immediately after depositing all the tax without any delay. Accordingly, the demand on account of 234E is cancelled. 12. Similar view has been taken by the ITAT Pune Bench'A' in case of Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, DOBI BK Vs. DCIT, CPC(TDS), Ghaziabad wherein it has been held as under: 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue arising in the present bunch of appeals is against levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act while issuing intimation under section 200A of the Act, in the first bunch of appeals. The second bunch of appeals in the case of Junagade Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. is against order of Assessing Officer passed under section 154 of the Act rejecting rectification application moved by assessee against intimation issued levying late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act. The case of assessee before us is that the issue is squarely covered by various orders of Tribunal, wherein the issue h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egulatory mode or a regulatory mechanism but it can rather be termed as conferring substantive power upon the authority. It is true that, a regulatory mechanism by insertion of any provision made in the statute book, may have a retroactive character but, whether such provision provides for a mere regulatory mechanism or confers substantive power upon the authority would also be a aspect which may be required to be considered before such provisions is held to be retroactive in nature. Further, when any provision is inserted for liability to pay any tax or the fee by way of compensatory in nature or fee independently simultaneously mode and the manner of its enforceability is also required to be considered and examined. Not only that, but, if the mode and the manner is not expressly prescribed, the provisions may also be vulnerable. All such aspects will be required to be considered before one considers regulatory mechanism or provision for regulating the mode and the manner of recovery and its enforceability as retroactive. If at the time when the fee was provided under Section 234E, the Parliament also provided for its utility for giving privilege under Section 271H(3) that too by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive in nature and hence, notices issued under section 200A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act relating to the period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015 were not maintainable and were set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. In view of said proposition being laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka {supra), there is no merit in observations of CIT(A) that in the present case, where the returns of TDS were filed for each of the quarters after 1st day of June, 2015 and even the order charging late filing fees was passed after June, 2015, then the same are maintainable, since the amendment had come into effect. The CIT(A) has overlooked the fact that notices under section 200A of the Act were issued for computing and charging late filing fees under section 234E of the Act for the period of tax deducted prior to 1st day of June, 2015. The same cannot be charged by issue of notices after 1st day of June, 2015 even where the returns were filed belatedly by the deductor after 1st June, 2015, where it clearly related to the period prior to 01.06.2015. 16. We hold that the issue raised in the present bunch o....