TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer erred in levying fee U/S 234E to the extent of Rs.38,400/-. While processing statement of TDS in respect of Q3 of FY 2012-13. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer failed to note that clause (c) of Section.200A(1), Which authorizes the Assessing Officer to charge fee U/S.234E while processing the statement of TDS was introduced by the Finance Act, 2015 W.e.f. 01.08.2015. 2.1 The learned Assessing Officer failed to note that in view of the said amendment, the levy of fee U/S.234 E for purposes of sec.200Aeffect from 01.08.2015 and does not apply to quarterly statements of earlier periods. 2.2 T he Seamed Assessing Officer failed to note that prior to 01-06-2015 there was no enabling provision U/S 200A of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sse cannot be treated in default & TDS statement cannot be treated as defective due to nonpayment of fate U/s 234E, like non-payment of self-assessment tax & interest along with return U/s 139(1) treats an income tax return as defective U/s.139(9) of the Act. 9. Sec. 201(2) of the act states that if a person has failed to deposit tax and interest then it shall be a charge upon all the asset of that person, so it also not cover/recover late fee if no deposited along with TDS statement 10. The Learned Assessing Officer failed to take note of decisions of 1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, CHENNAI 1. Smt.G.Indhirani VS The Deputy Commissioner of income Tax, CPC- TDS- Ghaziabad, (ITA No.1019, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e not properly served on the Assessee. As the issue involved intricate provisions of the income tax Act, 1861, the could not get immediate legal advice in the matter. The delay in filing of Appeal is not an intentional and deliberate one. 13. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary and/or withdraw any or a!! of the aforesaid grounds of or at time of hearing of the above appeal. In view of the foregoing grounds and such others that may be urged before the honourable Income -Tax Appellate Tribunal at the time of hearing, your appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered. 3. The assessee field an affidavit with a request to condone the delay. We find that the delay was mainly bec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....:- "21. However, if Section 234E providing for fee was broughton the state book, keeping in view the aforesaid purpose andthe intention then, the other mechanism provided forcomputation of fee and failure for payment of fee underSection 200A which has been brought about with effect from1.6.2015 cannot be said as only by way of a regulatory modeor a regulatory mechanism but it can rather be termed asconferring substantive power upon the authority. It is truethat, a regulatory mechanism by insertion of any provisionmade in the statute book, may have a retroactive characterbut, whether such provision provides for a mere regulatorymechanism or confers substantive power upon the authoritywould also be a aspect which may be required to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r impliedly demonstrated, any provisionof statute is to be read as having prospective effect and notretrospective effect. Under the circumstances, we find thatsubstitution made by clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) ofSection 200A can be read as having prospective effect andnot having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, thedemand under Section 200A for computation and intimationfor the payment of fee under Section 234E could not be madein purported exercise of power under Section 200A by therespondent for the period of the respective assessment yearprior to 1.6.2015. However, we make it clear that, if anydeductor has already paid the fee after intimation receivedunder Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit thedeductor t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sedafter June, 2015, then the same are maintainable, since theamendment had come into effect. The CIT(A) has overlooked thefact that notices under section 200A of the Act were issued forcomputing and charging late filing fees under section 234E of theAct 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 ofJune, 2015 even where the returns were filed belatedly by thedeductor after 1st June, 2015, where it clearly related to theperiod prior to 01.06.2015. 16. We hold that the issue raised in the present bunch of appealsis identical to the issue raised before the Tribunal in differentbunches of appeals and since the amendment to section 200A ofthe Act was prospec....