TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd style of Parakh Nursing Home providing health care facilities and other related services. That during the F.Y.2013-14, relevant to A.Y.2014-15, there was delay in filing TDS statements and accordingly, the department had levied late filing fees u/s. 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). This is the common grievance with regard to all these three appeals before us. In this regard, the question arises as per the captioned matters that whether the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeals of the assessee against the levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act for belated filing of TDS statements for A.Y.2014-15 amounting to Rs. 7080/- Rs. 13,911/- and Rs. 15,530/-, respectively. 5. In this regard, the assessee submitted through written submission placing reliance on various judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as Hon'ble High Courts that the provision of levying late fees u/s.234E r.w.s.200A was introduced vide the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 applicable from A.Y.2016-17 and therefore, prior to that the department did not have any power to impose such fees u/s.234E of the Act. In other words, there is no retrosp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... privilege to the defaulter to come out from the rigors of penalty provision under Section 271H (1) (a) if he pays the fee within one year and complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. 20. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, two aspects may transpire one, for Section 234E providing for fee and given privilege to the defaulter if he pays the fee and hence, when a privilege is given for a particular purpose which in the present case is to come out from rigors of penal provision of Section 271H(1)(a), it cannot be said that the provisions of fee since creates a counter benefit or reciprocal benefit in favour of the defaulter in the rigors of the penal provision, the provisions of Section 234E would meet with the test of quid pro quo. 21. However, if Section 234E providing for fee was brought on the state book, keeping in view the aforesaid purpose and the intention then, the other mechanism provided for computation of fee and failure for payment of fee under Section 200A which has been brought about with effect from 1.6.2015 cannot be said as only by way of a regulatory mode or a regulatory mechanism but it can rather be term....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent- Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid. 24. If the facts of the present cases are examined in light of the aforesaid observation and discussion, it appears that in all matters, the intimation given in purported exercise of power under Section 200A are in respect of fees under Section 234E for the period prior to 1.6.2015. As such, it is on account of the intimation given making demand of the fees in purported exercise of power under Section 200A, the same has necessitated the appellant-original petitioner to challenge the validity of Section 234E of the Act. In view of the reasons rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E as they relate to for the period of the tax deducted prior to 1.6.2015 are set aside. It is clarified that the present judgment would not be interpreted to mean that even if the payment of the fees under Section 234E already made as per demand/intimation under Section 200A of the Act for the TDS for the period prior to 01.04.2015 is permitted to be reopened for claiming refund. The judgment will have prospective effect accordingly. It is further observed that the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E shall remain open to be considered by the Division Bench and shall not get concluded by the order of the learned Single Judge." 8. The ratio of the above judgment was followed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Pune in the cases of (i) Gajanan Constructions v. DCIT, 73 taxmann.com 380 (ITAT Pune); (ii) Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune vs. DCIT, 74 taxmann.com 6 and (iii) Webtrust Co. Inc (India) Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, CPC (TDS) in ITA Nos.1818 & 1819/PUN/2018 for Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15, order dated 02.11.2021 as well as the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribuna....