TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1051
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)"] dismissing appeal wherein the Appellant/Assessee had called into question the correctness the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act by way of intimation issued under Section 200A of the Act on processing of Statement of Tax Deducted at Source ["TDS Statement" in short] of third quarter of Financial Year 2012-13 relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14. 3. The Appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. Ground 1) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of late Fees U/s 234-E at Rs. 40,000/- on TDS Statement 26Q for Quarter 3 (Oct 12-Dec 12) of A.Y. 2013-14 filed beyond due date on the basis of various court judgments in favour of the Revenue prior to 01/06/2015. It is prayed that the levy of late fees prior to 01/06/2015 be directed to be deleted" 4. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the Appellant was under obligation to deduct tax at source in respect of amounts paid/payable to various parties and file quarterly TDS Statement in respect of the same. Admittedly, in the present set of appeals, the Appellant filed the TDS Statement/Revised Statement for the third quarter of the financial year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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 expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or 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 1 st 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 of appeals is identical to the issue raised before the Tribunal in different bunches of appeals and since the amendment to section 200A of the Act was prospective in nature, the Assessing Officer while proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... while computing delay had taken the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act as the basis, whereas the assessee had filed appeals before CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) had noted that rectification application was filed in February, 2018 which was rejected by CPC on the same day. The CIT(A) was of the view that there was no merit in condonation of delay, wherein appeals were filed beyond the period prescribed. The assessee had filed appeals against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, hence the time period of appeals filed by assessee before the CIT(A) have to be computed from the date of order passed under section 154 of the Act and not from the date of issue of intimation. Thus, there is no merit in the order of CIT(A) in dismissing the appeals of assessee on this issue." (Emphasis Supplied) 8. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has, in the case of K.D. Realities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT(Appeals)-1, Thane: [ITA Nos.6499 to 6502/Mum/2018, Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17, pronounced on 15.11.2019], has held as under: "6. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent 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 the captioned years viz. A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 and 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." 7. As regards the levy of fees under Sec.234E for A.Y. 2016-17 is concerned, we find that as the statements of TDS for the first quarter therein involved was to be filed latest by 15.07.2015, i.e. subsequent to the cut off period of 01.06.2015 (the date on which the section enabling levy of fees under Sec.234E was made available in Sec.200A), therefore, no infirmity arises from the imposition of the aforesaid fees in the hands of the assessee. In fact, as observed by us hereinabove, the ld. A.R had admitted that he is not assailing ....