TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1983
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Year 2014-15) and Rs.7,282/- for 2nd Quarter relating to TDS Form No.26Q (Assessment Year 2015-16). 2. During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mrs. Renu Kapoor, relied upon the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sonalac Paints & Coating Ltd. vs DCIT (2018) 194 TTJ (Chd) 771. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri S. K. Mishra, contended that there are conflicting decisions on the issue in hand. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion from the aforesaid decision dated 01/05/2018 for ready reference and analysis:- "These appeals by the assessee's are directed against the orders o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come up in appeal before us raising the following common grounds in both the appeals: 1. That on the facts, circumstances of the case and in law, the Worthy CIT(A) through his order dated 31.03.2017 has erred in passing that order in contravention of the provisions of S. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts, circumstances of the case and in law, the Worthy CIT(A) has grossly erred in holding that appeal against order passed u/s 200A, wherein fee u/s 234E has been charged, is not maintainable before him u/s 246A. 3. That on the facts, circumstances of the case and in law, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO wherein he had erred in creating a demand ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no adjustment on account of fees u/s 234E could be made while processing the said returns u/s 200A of the Act. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the mandate to make such adjustment was provided by the Statute only w.e.f. 01.06.2015 by way of an amendment made to Section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015. The ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, stated that the adjustment made in the present case of levying fees u/s 234E while processing the TDS return u/s 200A of the Act was bad in law. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ITAT in a number of cases had deleted fees levied in identical circumstances holding that prior to 01.06.2015, fees u/s 234E could not be charged by way of making adjustment while process....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of CIT Vs Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 and CIT Vs Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (1973). The ld. counsel for the assessee further stated that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal stating that it is nonmaintainable. Ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that intimation made u/s 200A are appealable to the CIT(A) as per provisions of Section 246A of the Act, which outlines the appealable orders before the Commissioner (Appeals) and it is against this intimation that the assessee had filed appeal to the CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and also gone through the documents and orders referred to before us by both the parties. The issue in the present ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the fees u/s 234E in the present case was levied in the intimations made u/s 200A of the Act. Such intimations are appealable before the CIT(A) as per the provisions of Section 246A of the Act and in the present case, the assessee had filed appeals against these intimations made u/s 200A. Therefore, all the appeals were maintainable and the ld. CIT(A) had wrongly dismissed the assessees' appeals holding them to be nonmaintainable. As for the reliance placed by the CIT(A) on the orders passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, we find that the said judgements have been misinterpreted by the CIT(A). In both these cases, the constitutional validity of Section 234E was challenged before the Hon'ble H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed by the ld. CIT(A), we hold, is not as per law. 10. Now coming to the merits of the case, we find force in the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no mandate, as per the Statute, to make any adjustment on account of levy of fees u/s 234E while processing TDS returns u/s 200A. We have taken note of the order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court holding the amendment made to Section 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015, giving power to make adjustment on account of fees u/s 234E while processing returns u/s 200A, to be retrospective in nature, stating that this power given to the AO is a machinery provision while the substantive provision of the power to levy fees u/s 234E was always there on the Statute ....