TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 562
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed order dated 04. 09. 2015 inter alia imposing late fee of Rs. 50,000/- for late filing of TDS return. The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld. CIT(A) inter alia on the grounds that the order u/s 234E is bad in law; that since the TDS was deposited along with interest no loss was caused to the department; and that the assessee being a public sector undertaking of the govt. had no intention for late filing of TDS return. However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the contention of the assessee upheld the action of the Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Against the said findings of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds: - 1. That authorities below ought to have considered that due date for filing TDS return was 15.07.2014 for the period between 01.04.2014 to 30.06.2014 and amendment of section 200A(1) (c) of Income Tax Act come into force on 01.06.2015. Therefore law applicable prior to should have applied while deciding case of appellant alternatively. 2. That the authorities below erred in not considering the J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that since the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are in accordance with the provisions of law, there is no infirmity in the said order, therefore no action is required in this case. 6. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record including the cases relied upon by the appellant/assessee and the cases relied upon by the authorities below. The legal issue raised by the appellant/assessee is the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner by retrospectively applying the amended provisions of section 200A of the Act, which became applicable w. e. f. 01.06. 2015. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, the Pune, Mumbai and Delhi Benches of the tribunal have dealt with the identical issue and held that the concerned authorities have wrongly applied the amended provisions of section 200A retrospectively. In the case of Gangamai College vs. ACIT, (supra) the Pune Bench of the Tribunal has held that the AO had no jurisdiction to issue notices under section 200A of the Act for computing and charging late filing fees u/s 234E of the Act for the period of tax deducted prior to first day of June, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act is procedural in nature and in view thereof, the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all these appeals does not stand and the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section 234E of the Act is not valid and the same is deleted. The intimation issued by the Assessing Officer was beyond the scope of adjustment provided under section 200A of the Act and such adjustment could not stand in the eye of law." 12. The said proposition has been applied in the next bunch of appeals with lead order in Vidya Vardhani Education and Research Foundation in ITA Nos.1887 to 1893/PUN/2016 and others relating to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 vide order dated 13.01.2017 and also in Swami Vivekanand Vidyalaya Vs. DCIT(CPC)-TDS (supra) and Medical Superintendant Rural Hospital Vs. ACIT (CPC)-TDS in ITA Nos.2072 & 2073/PUN/2017, order dated 21.12.2017, which has been relied upon by the learned Authorized Repr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondent-Revenue that insertion of clause (c) to (f) under Section 200A(i) should be treated as retroactive in character and not prospective. 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 respondent for the period of 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 un....