TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d levy of fee under section 234E of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.3401/Ahd/2015 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2016 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Aseem Thakkar, AR For The Respondent : Shri B.Panda, Sr.DR ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad [ CIT(A) in short] dated 01/09/2015 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order passed by the Dy.Comm.of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad, U.P. u/s.200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Comm. ref.No.TDS /1314/26Q/D/100008916681 dtd. 19/05/2014 in respect of Form No.26Q filed by the Appellant for quarter -3 of F.Yr.2013-14 which is illegal and bad in law. Hence the same should be cancelled. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Dy.Comm.of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell-T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een thoroughly examined by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Siddhi Vinayak Developers vs. DCIT(supra) and held as under:- 5. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The ITAT, Amristar Bench has made elaborate discussion on this issue. The finding has been reproduced in the case of Indian Overseas Bank Vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad rendered in ITA No.3271/Ahd/2014. It reads as under: 5. I find that the issue in appeal is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Limited vs. DCIT - ITA No.90/Asr/2015, vide order dated 9th June, 2015, wherein the Division Bench has inter alia observed as under :- 4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. In addition to his argument on the merits, learned counsel has also invited our attention to the reports about the decisions of various Hon ble High Courts, including Hon ble Kerala High Court, in the case of Narath Mapila LP School Vs Union of India [WP (C) 31498/2013(J)], Hon ble Karanataka High Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tement of tax deduction at source, or a correction statement, has been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 200, such statement shall be processed in the following manner, namely:- (a) the sums deductible under this Chapter shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:- (i) any arithmetical error in the statement; or (ii) an incorrect claim, apparent from any information in the statement; (b) the interest, if any, shall be computed on the basis of the sums deductible as computed in the statement; (c) the sum payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the deductor shall be determined after adjustment of amount computed under clause (b) against any amount paid under section 200 and section 201, and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest; (d) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the deductor specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, him under clause (c); and (e) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (c) shall be granted to the deductor: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... words in the impugned intimation itself, and, as the law stood, prior to 1st June 2015, there was no enabling provision therein for raising a demand in respect of levy of fees under section 234E. While examining the correctness of the intimation under section 200A, we have to be guided by the limited mandate of Section 200A, which, at the relevant point of time, permitted computation of amount recoverable from, or payable to, the tax deductor after making the following adjustments: (a). after making adjustment on account of arithmetical errors and incorrect claims apparent from any information in the statement - Section 200A(1)(a) (b). after making adjustment for interest, if any, computed on the basis of sums deductible as computed in the statement . - Section 200A(1)(b) 9. No other adjustments in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at that point of time. 10. In view of the above discussions, in our considered view, the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope of permissible adjustments contemplated under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
