TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O. to delete the late fees levied u/s. 234E of the Act from the hands of the assessee. Appeals of the assessee are allowed. - ITA Nos. 565, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581 and 582/PUN/2022 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2022 - SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants by : Shri Ruturaj Gujar (virtual) Respondent by : Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav ORDER PER SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : These eighteen appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, all dated 01-04-2022 for assessment years as mentioned in the cause title hereinabove, as per the grounds of appeal on record. 3. The only grievance in all these eighteen appeals is the levy of late fees u/s. 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 4. We have perused the relevant materials/documents available on record, heard the parties. It is settled legal position that such power to the Department was not there for levying late fees u/s. 234E prior to 01-06-2015. We also observe that these cases before us pertai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 11. Similarly, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) held that in the matter of condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bona fides. The Hon'ble Telanga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India, 73 taxmann.com 252 held that the provisions of section 234E of the Act are substantive in nature and the mechanism for computing the late fee was provided by the Parliament only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Therefore, late fees u/s. 234E of the Act can be levied only prospectively w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra) are extracted hereunder:- 19. Hence, it can be said that, the mechanism provided for enforceability of Section 200(3) or 206C(3) for filing of the statement by making it penal under Section 272A(2)(k) is done away in view of the insertion of Section 271H providing for penal provision for such failure to submit return. When the Parliament has simultaneously brought about Section 234E, Section 271H and the aforesaid proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that, the fee provided under Section 234E is contemplated to give a 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 su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o declared that if the impugned notices under Section 200A are set aside, so far as it relates to computation and intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E, the appellant-petitioners would not press the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act. But, they submitted that the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E may be kept open to be considered by the Division Bench and the Judgment of the learned Single Judge may not conclude the constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act. 26. Under these circumstances, we find that no further discussion would be required for examining the constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act. 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. 27. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
