TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fee u/s.234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, an adjournment petition was filed for adjournment of the hearing on the ground that the A.R. is otherwise busy due to preoccupied professional engagement and is out of head-quarter. The reason for seeking adjournment of hearing filed by the assesse was not found to be plausible one and, therefore, the adjournment was rejected. The Bench was of the view that these appeals can be disposed off in the absence of the assessee. Therefore, the appeals were heard exparte qua the assessee and disposed off considering the submission of the ld D.R. and the materials available on record. 5. Ld D.R. submitted that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee, that the AO erred in levying the fee u/s 234E of the Act which been wrongly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) need to deleted. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT(DR) contended that the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. Union of India 62 taxmann.com 310 (Punjab & Haryana) has taken a view which is in favour of the Revenue. On a query from the bench as to whether the jurisdictional High Court i.e. Hon'ble Orissa High Court has passed any orders in respect to the LIS before us. The Ld. DR fairly conceded that there is no order of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court on the issue in hand before us. It is well settled that when there is no order of the Jurisd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e High Court held as follows In para 22 to 24 which is reproduced as under: 22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Under the circumstances, we find that substitution made by clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under Section 200A by the responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 quashed and set aside to that extent." 8. We take note that the facts of the aforesaid case and the facts before us are similar. Only after 01.06.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act while processing the statement under section 200A of the Act and not before. Therefore, respectfully relying the order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the impugned intimation of the lower authorities levying fee under section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly the intimation under section 200A as confirmed by....