TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .S. Syal, Vice President And Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Abhay Avachat For the Revenue : Shri M.G. Jasnani ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : The instant batch of six appeals pertains to a single assessee herein Shri Santosh T. Murkute. All other relevant details thereof read as under: Sr. No. ITA No. A.Y. Order appealed against proceedings 1 133/PUN/2020 2013-14 (Qrt 3) CIT(A), Aurangabad s order dated 26.11.2019 passed in case No.ABD/CIT(A)-1/644/ 2018-19, involving proceedings u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) 2 134/PUN/2020 2013-14 (Qrt 4) CIT(A), Aurangabad s order dated 26.11.2019 passed in case No.ABD/CIT(A)-1/648/ 2018-19, involving proceedings u/s 200A of the Act 3 135/PUN/2020 2014-15 (Qrt 3) CIT(A), Aurangabad s order dated 27.11.2019 passed in case No.ABD/CIT(A)-1/652/ 2018-19, involving proceedings u/s 200A of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide order dated 21.09.2016 with lead order in ITA Nos.560/PN/2016 561/PN/2016, 1018/PN/2016 to 1023/PN/2016 in Maharashtra Cricket Association Vs. DCIT (CPC)-TDS, Ghaziabad, relating to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 for the respective quarters deliberated upon the issue and held as under:- 34. Accordingly, we hold that the amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act is procedural in nature and in view thereof, the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all these appeals does not stand and the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section 234E of the Act is not valid and the same is deleted. The intimation issued by the Assessing Officer was beyond the scope of adjustment provided under section 200A of the Act and such adjustment could not stand in the eye of law. 12. The said proposition has been applied in the next bunch of appeals with lead order in Vidya Vardhani Education and Research Foundation in ITA Nos.1887 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 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 peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ches of appeals and since the amendment to section 200A of the Act was prospective in nature, the Assessing Officer while processing TDS returns / statements for the period prior to 01.06.2015 was not empowered to charge late filing fees under section 234E of the Act, even in cases where such TDS returns were filed belatedly after June, 2015 and even in cases where the Assessing Officer processed the said TDS returns after June, 2015. Accordingly, we hold that intimation issued by Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all the appeals does not stand and the demand raised by charging late filing fees under section 234E of the Act is not valid and the same is deleted. 17. Before parting, we may also refer to the order of CIT(A) in relying on the decision of Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in Rajesh Kourani Vs. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that the issue is settled in favour of assessee by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India (supra). Since we have already relied on the said ratio laid down by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka, the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y also refer to the order of the CIT(A) in these two appeals. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee being delayed for a period of two and half years. The CIT(A) had taken the date of intimation under section 200A(3) dated 07-08-2014 and computed the delay in filing the appeal late before him. However, the assessee had filed the appeal before the CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The said application for rectification under section 154 was filed on 08-06-2017/09-03-2017 in the respective years. The said application was decided by the Assessing Officer on 09-06-2017. The assessee filed an appeal against the dismissal of the rectification application filed under section 154 of the Act. The said fact is clear from the perusal of Form No.35 with special reference to Column 2(a) and 2(b). In the entirety of the above said facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the order of CIT(A) in the case of Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, Surgana in dismissing the appeal in-limine being filed beyond the period of limitation. We have already decided the issue on merits in favour of assessee. 20. We have already decided the issue on merits i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
