TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1852
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Financial Year 2013-14 belatedly on 24/04/2017. Subsequently, the Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") assessed the quarterly returns filed by the assessee and passed intimation U/s. 200A of the Act, dated 03/05/2017 and levied late filing fee of Rs. 2,15,200/- U/s. 234E of the Act on account of delayed filing of the TDS returns for the AY 2014-15. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC belatedly beyond the prescribed time limit specified under the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee has filed petition explaining the reasons for belated filing of the TDS returns with a prayer for condonation of delay. Before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee has also submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority may be condoned to advance substantial justice on the ground that the issue involved therein, on merits, is with respect to levy of late filing fee U/s. 234E of the Act is now covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions as per which there is no provision under the Act to levy late filing fee before insertion of section 200A by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f 1/6/2015. Howeve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the decision of the Ld. Revenue Authorities may be set-aside and the assessee may be granted relief by deleting the late fee levied U/s. 234E of the Act. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative heavily relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities specifically with respect to the levy / imposition of late fee u/s. 234E of the Act by the Ld. AO. It is the submission of the Ld. DR that since the assessee filed its TDS statements beyond the stipulated time as per the TDS provisions, late fee was levied on account of default in furnishing the statements beyond the prescribed time limit under the Act. The Ld. DR further submitted that the fee charged U/s. 234E is not in lieu of penalty as the fee charged under section 234E is not in the nature of penalty and is a fee which the deductor shall be liable to pay in the event of delay in filing the TDS statements as prescribed. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Fee charged U/s. 234E is a fixed fee charged in the case of statements are rendered beyond the stipulated time which is happened in the instant case. The Ld. DR also submitted that it is rightly observed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions and imposed late fees u/s. 234E amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- and passed order U/s. 200A of the Act dated 01/12/2015. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to belated filing of the appeal and held that the reasons given by the assessee do not constitute sufficient and reasonable cause for the belated filing of the appeals. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeals. 9. In the present case, to file the TDS return for the FY 2014- 15, Quarter-1 relevant to the AY 2015-16 is 30/06/2014 but the assessee filed the return on 27/11/2015. In our considered view since the enabling provision for computation of fee while processing the statements was inserted in section 200A only w.e.f 1/6/2015 and therefore, the charging section i.e., section 234E cannot be enforced to the cases prior to 1/6/2015. Further, we are of the view that the amended provision applies for all the returns pertaining to the period after 1/6/2015 and not for the returns pertaining to the period prior to 01/06/2015 notwithstanding the fact that the returns pertaining to the period prior to 01/06/2015 were filed after 01/06/2015 or proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Under the circumstances, we find that substitution made by clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under Section 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. However, we make ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decisions of the Tribunal (supra), I am of the view that the levying of late fee under section 234E for the period prior to 1/6/2015 is not sustainable in law. 14. Thus, in the instant case since the period of default was before the said date i.e., 01/06/2015, there is no merit in charging late filing fee U/s. 234E of the Act. Accordingly the Ld. AO is directed to delete the fee levied U/s. 234E of the Act in the order passed U/s. 154 r.w.s 200A of the Act Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 15. With respect to ITA Nos. 191, 192 & 193/Viz/2022, the grounds of appeal as well as the issue raised in these three appeals are identical to that the of the grounds and the issue raised in the appeal ITA No. 190/Viz/2022, which is adjudicated in the above paragraphs of this order, our decision given thereof mutatis mutandis applies to the present appeals (ITA Nos. 191, 192 & 193/Viz/2022) also. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. 16. In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed." 6. Respectfully following the decision of this Bench in the case of Mohammed Vaziruddin vs. ITO in ITA....