2019 (6) TMI 1524

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e respective quarters belatedly, therefore, the ACIT(CPC-TDS), Ghaziabad raised the following demands for the respective quarters and respective financial years :- Financial Year Assessment Year Quarter Demand raised 2012-2013 2013-2014 24Q-2 45,000/- 2012-2013 2013-2014 24Q-3 4500/- 2012-2013 2013-2014 24Q-4 1,31,410/- 2013-2014 2014-2015 24Q-1 54,500/- 2013-2014 2014-2015 24Q-2 68,500/- 2013-2014 2014-2015 24Q-3 1,12,500/- 2013-2014 2014-2015 24Q-4 2,11,000/- 2014-2015 2015-2016 26Q-1 1,15,000/- 2014-2015 2015-2016 24Q-2 1,56,000/- 2014-2015 2015-2016 24Q-3 78,000/- 2014-2015 2015-2016 24Q-4 1,38,200/- 2015-2016 2016-2017 24Q-3 78,000/- 4. Against the above demand raised u/s.234E of the Act, by the CPC(TDS), the assessee appealed before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed all the appeals of the assessee holding that the assessee has filed quarterly TDS return in Form No.24Q for the above mentioned quarters belatedly. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 6. At the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... outset itself, it was pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that this issue is no longer res integra since the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi v. Union of India (289 CTR 0602) has held that w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the Parliament by way of an amendment to Section 200A of the Act, has empowered the AO to levy fee u/s 234E of the Act while processing u/s 200A of the Act. Therefore, prior to that date i.e. .2015, the AO had no authority to levy fee u/s 234E of the Act. Therefore, according to the contention of the Ld. Counsel for 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&#3....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest. 23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid. 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 hereinab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d deducted TDS on the due amounts and it has been deposited within the time and there is merely a failure for late filing of quarterly TDS return for the Quarter-IV. The assessee is a Government Department and the case is related to financial year 2013-2014 before amendment in the Act. Merely the intimation was generated u/s.200A of the Act on 03.06.2015, cannot be the basis for the levy of fee u/s.234E of the Act. To support our above view, reliance can be placed on the decision of Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Station Headquarters (Army) Vs. ACIT, [2019] 108 taxmann.com 294(Jodhpur-Trib.), wherein the coordinate bench of the Tribunal at para 6 has observed as under :- "6. In the light of the aforesaid decision and respectfully following the same, we note that it appears that in all matters, the intimation given by the AO which are given in purported exercise of power u/s. 200A are in respect of late fees u/s. 234E of the Act for the period prior to 01.06.2015. As such, it is on account of the intimation given making demand of the late fee in purported exercise of powers u/s. 200A of the Act. We note that clause (c) of sec. 200A of the Act empowers the AO t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....there is no indication whatsoever that clause (c) of section 200A is retrospective or clarificatory in nature. Therefore, the AO is not empowered to levy late fees u/s. 234E of the Act before 01.06.2015. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and the ratio laid by the Pune Bench in Maharastra Cricket Association (supra), we hold that the amendment [clause (c)] was inserted u/s. 200A of the Act which has been given effect from 01.06.2015 is prospective in nature, and no computation of late fee for the demand or the intimation for the late fee u/s. 234E could be made for the TDS deducted for the respective assessment years prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, the intimation u/s. 200A of the Act by the AO, TDS for payment of late fee u/s. 234E of the Act for the respective assessment years prior to 01.06.2015 is without any authority of law. In the light of the aforesaid view, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of AO with a direction to AO that the late fee levied for the period of delay of filing return prior to 01.06.2015 need to be deleted. We further clarify that the AO is well within his jurisdiction to levy late fee u/s. 234E ....