2023 (4) TMI 736

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....abad (A.O) erred on facts and in law while processing and levying of late filing fees u/s 234E together with interest u/s 220(2) without giving an opportunity of being heard. 2. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC erred in upholding the levy of FEE U/s 234E amounting to Rs.2,32,800 and interest thereon amounting to Rs. 1,11,970 aggregating to Rs 3,44,770/- for financial 2013-14 by the ITO, ward (TDS), 2(1), Hyderabad. 3. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC, failed to appreciate that section 200A(1)(c) was inserted by the Finance Act, 2015. W.e.f 01.06.2015 to impose the late fee Rs. 200 per day U/s 234E. The Assessee filed the TDS, Quarterly returns F.Y 201-14 late and there was no provision to charge or impose late fee U/s 234E in F.Y 2013-14. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us. 5. It is the contention of the assessee before us that the respondent had levied late fee u/s. 234E for a period prior to 01.06.2015 which is not maintainable and further submitted that Assessing Officer has was no power under Sec.200A to levy any late fee U/s. 234E prior to amendment of law on 01.06.2015 and relied on the decision in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors Vs. Union of India (2017) reported in 10 ITR-OL 509 (Kar). 6. Per contra the ld. LD. DR strongly relied upon the order of lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the order is reproduced as follows: "3. Heard. The ld. CIT(A), while deciding the matter against the assessee, has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. UOI', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj), wherein, it has been held that section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing the mechanism for processing a statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustments. The ld. CIT(A) has held that this decision was delivered after considering numerous ITAT/High Court decisions and so, this decision in 'Rajesh Kaurani' (supra) holds the field. 4. We do not find the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) to be correct in law. As against 'Rajesh Kaurani' (supra), 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI', 73 com 252 (Ker), as a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ower 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 under protest." 6. In view of the above, respectfully following 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others' (supra), 'Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (TDS)', order dated 09.06.2015 passed in ITA No.90/ASR/2015, for A.Y.2013-14, by the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal, and 'Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS) Ghaziabad', order dated 15.09.2016, in ITA No.378/ASR/2015, for A.Y. 2012-13, the grievance of the assessee is....