TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act for delay in filling the quarterly TDS Statement. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has filed the TDS statement in Form no 26 Q for the Quarter (Q) -Q2 & Q4 of financial year 2012-13(A.Y.2013-14) with the delay. The assessee has filed correction statement u/sec200A of the Act. The intimation u/sec 154 of the Act dated 21-08-2021 was passed with late fee U/sec234E of the Act (i) Q2 Rs. 12,078/-(ii) Q4 Rs6000/-.Aggrieved by the Intimations u/sec 154 of the Act, the assessee has filed separate appeals with the CIT(A). Whereas, the CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of late fee and dismissed the assessee appeals. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) orders, the Assessee has filed the appeals with the Hon'ble Tribunal. 4. At t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4/2015(I-IT)/ (289 C T R 0602) has observed and held as under: "(i) 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. (ii) However, if Section 234E providing for fee was brought on the state book, keeping in view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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. (iii) 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder 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 recorded by us hereinabove, when the amendment made under Section 200A of the Act which has come into effect on 1.6.2015 is held to be having prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for the fee under Section 234E could be made for the TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent. (vi) As such, as recorded earlier,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Save and except to observe that the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act before the Division Bench of this Court shall remain open and shall not be treated as concluded. (viii) In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the impugned notices under Section 200A 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 ....