TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 952
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relevant time, the said delay is condoned and the instant appeals are admitted for disposal on merits by virtue of judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314. 4. There is a common grievance in all these appeals before us and at the time of hearing, the respective Counsels for the aforestated assessees submitted that the only issue for adjudication is that the Department has erred in law and on facts in levying fees u/s 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") through an intimation u/s 200A of the Act for a period prior to 01-06-2015. The Department ought to have appreciated that levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act was not permissible adjustment as contemplated u/s 200A of the Act for the period prior to 01-06-2015. 5. That from the aforesaid captioned matters for discussing the facts, we would take up ITA No. 172/PUN/2021 for A,Y. 2013-14 as the lead case. 6. The brief facts are that the assessee filed TDS return for F.Y. 2012-13, the details of which are as follows: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rresponding filing of TDS returns and we are convinced that the action taken by the subordinate authorities is prior to 01-06-2015. We find that this issue had come up for adjudication before us in the case of Marshall Breeders Pvt. Ltd (supra) where we have considered a series of decisions of the Raipur Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Chhatisgardh Rajya Gramin Bank & Ors. Vs. The I.T.O TDS Bilaspur (CG) in ITA No. 39/RPR/2017 and others for A.Y. 2014-15 and others, decided on 31- 01-2019 wherein it was observed and held by the Tribunal as follows: "8. We have perused the case record and heard the rival contentions. We find that this issue had come up for adjudication before the Raipur 4 ITA Nos.2018 to 2025/PUN/2017 Marshall Breeders Pvt. Ltd. Bench in a series of cases from ITA Nos.117 to 120/RPR/2015, ITA Nos.88 & 89/RPR/2015, ITA Nos.100 & 101/RPR/2015, ITA Nos.96 & 97/RPR/2015, ITA No.79/RPR/2015, ITA Nos. 99 & 101/RPR/2016, ITA No.129/RPR/2016 and ITA No.130/RPR/2016 wherein it was observed by the Tribunal as follows: "A division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Limited Vs. DCIT- ITA No.90/Asr/2015, vide order dated 9th June, 2015 (2015....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l apply to a statement referred to in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax 5 ITA Nos.2018 to 2025/PUN/2017 Marshall Breeders Pvt. Ltd. collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012. 6. We may also reproduce the Section 200A which was inserted by the Finance Act 2009 with effect from 1st April 2010. This statutory provision, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was as follows: 200A: Processing of statements of tax deducted at source (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source, or a correction statement, has been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 200, such statement shall be processed in the following manner, namely:- (a) the sums deductible under this Chapter shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:- (i) any arithmetical error in the statement; or (ii) an incorrect claim, apparent from any information in the statement; (b) the interest, if any, shall be computed on the basis of the sums deductible as computed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and (f) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (d) shall be granted to the deductor. 8. In effect thus, post 1st June 2015, in the course of processing of a TDS statement and issuance of intimation under section 200A in respect thereof, an adjustment could also be made in respect of the "fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E". There is no dispute that what is impugned in appeal before us is the intimation under section 200A of the Act, as stated in so many words in the impugned intimation itself, and, as the law stood, prior to 1st June 2015, there was no enabling provision therein for raising a demand in respect of levy of fees under section 234E. While examining the correctness of the intimation under section 200A, we have to be guided by the limited mandate of Section 200A, which, at the relevant point of time, permitted computation of amount recoverable from, or payable to, the tax deductor after making the following adjustments: (a). after making adjustment on account of "arithmetical errors" and "incorrect claims apparent from any information in the statement" - Section 200A(1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view so taken by the co-ordinate Bench. Respectfully, following the same, we hold that the learned CIT(A) was indeed in error in upholding the levy of processing fees under section 234E by way of intimation under section 200A of the Act. We, therefore, quash the impugned demands. Assessees get the relief accordingly. 5. In the result, all these appeals are allowed." 9. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Jodhpur on the issue whether the order passed u/s.200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act‟) by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and creating demand for late filing of fees u/s.234E of the Act was justified or not, in the case of Government Secondary School Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos. 57 to 60/Jodh/2017 has held as under : "4. After considering the rival submissions, perusing the relevant material on case record and carefully going through the paper book as well as the various decisions cited by the Ld. AR, we find that similar issue cropped up before us in the case of Rantam Granite Marbles Pvt. Ltd. and others vide ITA Nos. 419 to 423/Jodh/2016 for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 order dated 18.05.2017 wherei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stainable in law, deleted the levy of late fee imposed u/s.234E of the Act. 13. On the basis of the above judicial pronouncements which were placed before us, on perusal and analyzing the details , it is absolutely clear that prior to 1.6.2015, there was no enabling provision in section 200A of the Act for raising a demand in respect of levying fee u/s.234E of the Act. Therefore, we hold that the intimation u/s.200A of the Act as confirmed by the Ld. CIT so far as levying of fees u/s.234E of the Act is, therefore, set aside and the fees levied is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed." 11. That on the basis of the aforesaid decision and following the same, on the same parity of reasoning, we had allowed the appeals of the assessee in case of Marshall Breeders Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the legal parameters are absolutely crystal clear that prior to 01-06-2015 there was no enabling provision in sec. 200A of the Act for raising a demand in respect of levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act. Therefore, we hold that intimation u/s 200A of the Act as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) so far as the levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act is therefore set aside and the fees levied are delete....