TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1423
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....234E for filing TDS returns belatedly. 2.1 The Assessee filed statement of tax deducted at source (TDS) for various quarters in Form No. 26Q for different quarterly years in FY 2012-13 to 2014-15 (relevant to AY 2013-14 to 2015-16). The statement was processed by CPC TDS, Bengaluru. There was a delay in filing the TDS statement and the Ld.AO by intimation u/s. 200A of the Act levied late fee u/s. 234E of the Act. 2.2 The Ld.DR was of the view that, u/s. 234E of the Act, if there is a delay in filing statement of TDS within the prescribed time then the person responsible for making payment and filing return of TDS is liable to pay by way of fee a sum of Rs.200/- per day during which the failure continues. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, him under clause (d); and (f) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (d) shall be granted to the deductor: Provided that no intimation under this sub-section shall be sent after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, "an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the statement" shall mean a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the statement- (i) of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such statement; (ii)in respect of rate of deduction of tax at source, where ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d filing of return of TDS while processing a return of TDS u/s. 234E of the Act could have been made for tax deducted at source for the assessment years prior to 1.6.2015. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the above submissions observed as under: "6.2 I have considered the grounds raised, the written submission filed and the cases relied in support of the Appellant's case. This issue has been examined in detail by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani v. Union of India[2017] 83 taxmann.com 137/249 Taxman 402 (Guj.). Hon'ble Gujarat High Court have clearly ruled that section 200A is merely a machinery provision and section 234E being a charging section can not be overruled just due to the lack of the enabli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the statements. 20. Even in absence of section 200A of the Act with introduction of section 234E, it was always open for the Revenue to demand and collect the fee for late filing of the statements. Section 200A would merely regulate the manner in which the computation of such fee would be made and demand raised. In other words, we cannot subscribe to the view that without a regulatory provision being found for section 200A for computation of fee, the fee prescribed under section 234E cannot be levied. Any such view would amount to a charging section yielding to the machinery provision. If at all, the recasted clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A would be in nature of clarificatory amendment. Even in absence of such provision, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....both these propositions, with respect, we are unable to concur. Section 200A is not a source of substantive power. Substantive power to levy fee can be traced to section 234E of the Act. Further the fee under section 234E of the Act is not in lieu of the penalty of section 271H of the Act. Both are independent levies. Section 271H only provides that such penalty would not be levy if certain conditions are fulfilled. One of the conditions is that the tax with fee and interest is paid. The additional condition being that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date." 6.4 Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court as given in the case of Rajesh Kourani vs. Union of India (Supra), I hold that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad only prospective effect and therefore, no computation of fee u/s. 234E of the Act for delayed filing of return of TDS while processing a return of TDS u/s. 234E of the Act could have been made for tax deducted at source for the assessment years prior to 1.6.2015. 6. Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Mindlogicx Infratec Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA Nos. 462 to 483/Bang/2022 by order dated 19/07/2022 for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 observed and held as under: "13. It is not in dispute that if the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateeraj Singhvi (supra) if applied then the levy of interest u/s. 234-E of the Act would be illegal for returns of TDS in respect of the period prior to 1.6.2015. The present a....