TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay along with affidavit is on record which happens to be of 642 days. We note that the order of ld. CIT(A) is dated 14.11.2019 which was received by the assessee on 27.11.2019 the due date of filing of these appeals was on 27.01.2020. The ld. AR submitted that the Shri Rakesh Kumar Soni, Advocate was suffering from illness and was confined to bed during the period from 12.1.2020 to 11.02.2020. However, due to the mistake done by Office Assistant, the order was kept with the case record of some other client and was not traceable and accordingly it prevented Shri Rakesh Kumar Soni from taking any further action. It was submitted that there was Covid-19 outbreak due to surge in Covid cases and owing to which the Executive Engineer, as per lett....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1961 of Rs. 2,450/- in order passed u/s 200A of 1. T. Act, pertaining to F. Y 2012-13 (For 3rd QTR in Form 26Q) without appreciating that the Late Fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to the period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 2. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred on facts and in law in not considering that the mechanism provided for computation of fee and failure for payment of fee u/s 200A was brought on statute w. e. f. 01.06.2015 and thus, the said amendment is prospective in nature. 3. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred on facts and in law in not considering the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Lucknow Tribunal in ITA No. 793, 794 and 795/LKW/2015 and the decision of co-ordinate benches where in the issue of 234E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e rival parties and have perused the material available on record. We find that it is undisputed fact that the assessee has been charged late fee u/s. 234E for various returns filed in the Form-26Q for late filing of the statements. These cases relate to Assessment Year 2014-15. The various Hon'ble High Courts including the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Kerala High Court have held that the provisions of Section 234E are applicable w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The relevant findings of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of 'Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India' (Supra) are in Para 21 to 23 and 26 are reproduced for the sake of completeness: "21. However, if Section 234E providing for fee was brought on the state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 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 provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondent-Revenue that insertion of clause (c) to (f) under Section 200A(1) should be treated as retroactive in character and not prospective. 22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e treated as concluded." 8. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of United Metals vs. ITO TDS, 137 taxmann.com 115 (Kerala) has also held similarly and the Lucknow bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. Saumya Singh vs. ACIT in ITA No. 793, 794 and 795/Lkw/2017 has also recorded similar findings. 9. In view of these facts and circumstances and following the precedents relied on by the assessee, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. 10. In view of these facts and circumstances and following the precedent referred above the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. 11. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 30/11/2022). ============= ....