AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 462
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in upholding the fee u/s 234E imposed on assessee by the DCIT (TDS), Ludhiana. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned notices u/s 200A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of fee cannot be issued as the TDS returns relate to quarter ending before 01.06.2015. So, the fee imposed is liable to be quashed. 3. That not only TDS was paid before 01.06.2015 but also TDS Return was filed before 01.06.2015. So, the fee u/s 234E cannot be charged while processing the TDS Return. So, the fee imposed is liable to be quashed. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not following Para No. 47.3 and 47.20 of Circular No. 19 of 2015 Dated 27.11.2015 379 ITR (St.) 19 being Explanatory notes to the provisions of Finance Act. 2015 which clearly provides that this provision be applicable w.e.f. 01.06.2015 not to the earlier assessment yeas as the existing provisions of section 200A of Income tax Act. 1961 did not provide for determination of fee payable u/s 23....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hi the assessee has filed this appeal before the Hon'ble Bench. CONDONATION OF DELAY: 5. That there is a delay of 1 day in filing appeal. The application for condonation of delay along with affidavit from assessee is filed before the Bench on 20.02.2023. So, keeping in view of Covid pandemic and the decision of Supreme Court in the case of IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION reported at 441 ITR 722 (SC) the delay may kindly be condoned. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble SC there is no delay. 6. That the assessee has raised Ground No. 1 - 6 of Appeal as under:- "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in upholding the fee u/s 234E imposed on assessee by the DCIT (TDS), Ludhiana. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned notices u/s 200A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of fee cannot be issued as the TDS returns relate to quarter ending before 01.06.2015. So, the fee imposed is liable to be quashed. 3. That not only TDS was paid before 01.06.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ination of fee payable u's 234E of the Act at the time of processing of IDS statements. Therefore, the provisions section 200A of the Act has been amended, so, as to enable computation of fee payable u/s 2.141 of the Act at the time of processing of IDS statements u/s 200A of the Act. Accordingly, fee of Rs. 90400/- and 37886/- charged u/s 200A for the period prior to 01.06.2015 while processing the return is liable to be deleted. That the case of the assessee is directly covered by the latest decision of Hon'ble Chandigarh Bench in the group case of Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank Vs The ITO (TDS) I I A No. 105/CHANDI/2022 AY 2013-14 Dated 16.06.2022 wherein late fees charged u/s 234E has been deleted for the period prior to 01.06.2015 on the basis of Fatheraj Singhvi & Others vs I'01 reported at 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka) wherein it was held that we find that substitution made by clause (c) to (r) of sub section (1) of section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly. the demand u/s 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee u/s 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power u/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the present case, the undisputed facts are that the assessee filed its TDS return (Form 26Q) for the fourth quarter of financial year 2012-13 on 26.12.2012 and the same was processed and intimation under section 200A was issued vide order dated 15.12.2013 much prior to the amendment to section 200A of the Act w.e.f. 1.6.2015 empowering the Assessing officer levying the fees under section 234E of the Act. It is therefore not a case of continuing default where the assessee has defaulted in furnishing the TDS statement even after 1.6.2015 and thereafter, the demand for payment of fees under section 234E has been raised by the Assessing officer. In case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that the provisions of amended section 200A are prospective in nature. Further, the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of M/s. Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan and Others (supra) as relied by ld. CIT (A) is in the context of validity of section 234E, but not in the context of power of AO for levy of fee under section 234E prior to 1.6.2015. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS statements for the period prior to 01.06.2015, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee, he can levy fee so mandated u/s 234E of the Act. Therefore, irrespective of the period to which the quarterly return pertains, where the return is filed after 1.6.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act. At the same time, in terms of determining the period for which fees can be levied, only saving could be that for the period of delay falling prior to 1.06.2015, there could not be any levy of fees as the assumption of jurisdiction to levy such fees have been held by the Courts to be prospective in nature. However, where the delay continues beyond 1.06.2015, the AO is well within his jurisdiction to levy fees under section 234E for the period starting 1.06.2015 to the date of actual filing of the TDS return. In light of the same, in the instant case, the levy of fees under section 234E is upheld for the period 1.06.2015 to the date of actual filing of the TDS return which is 12.09.2015 and the balance fee so levied is hereby deleted. In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed." 11. In light of aforesaid discussion, what need to be examined in the instant case is the time of the filing of the TDS returns and whether it is a case of continued defau....