TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which the related TDS statement is filed, and as the related TDS statement was filed on 19th February 2014, such a levy could only have been made at best within 31st March 2015. That time has already elapsed and the defect is thus not curable even at this stage. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, the impugned levy of fees under section 234 E is unsustainable in law. We, therefore, uphold the grievance of the assessee and delete the impugned levy of fee under section 234E of the Act. See Tanish Industries Pvt. Ltd. & I rfan Iqbalbhai Ajmerwala Versus The Dy. CIT [2015 (11) TMI 1507 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. Nos.3024 & 3025/Ahd/2014 - - - Dated:- 31-3-2017 - SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri V.I. Mehta, Addl. CIT. ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : These two appeals have been preferred by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- IV, Surat, dated 29/09/2014 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. Assessee/appellant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 in the case of Adithya Bizor P Solutions Vs Union of India [WP No. 6918-6938/2014(T-IT), Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Om Prakash Dhoot Vs Union of India [WP No. 1981 of 2014] and of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia Vs Union of India [WP No. 771 of 2014], granting stay on the demands raised in respect of fees under section 234E. The full text of these decisions were not produced before us. However, as admittedly there are no orders from the Hon'ble Courts above retraining us from our adjudication on merits in respect of the issues in this appeal, and as, in our humble understanding, this appeal requires adjudication on a very short legal issue, within a narrow compass of material facts, we are proceeding to dispose of this appeal on merits. 5. We may produce, for ready reference, section 234E of the Act, which was inserted by the Finance Act 2012 and was brought into effect from 1st July 2012. This statutory provision is as follows: 234E. Fee for defaults in furnishing statements (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor in pursuance of the determination under clause (c) shall be granted to the deductor: Provided that no intimation under this sub-section shall be sent after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed. Explanation : For the purposes of this sub-section, an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the statement shall mean a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the statement- (i) of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such statement; (ii) in respect of rate of deduction of tax at source, where such rate is not in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (2) For the purposes of processing of statements under sub-section (1), the Board may make a scheme for centralised processing of statements of tax deducted at source to expeditiously determine the tax payable by, or the refund due to, the deductor as required under the said subsection. 7. By way of Finance Act 2015, and with effect from 1st June 2015, there is an amendment in Section 200A and this amendment, as stated in the Finance Act 2015, is as follows: In section 200A of the Income-tax Act, in sub-sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble adjustments contemplated under section 200A. This intimation is an appealable order under section 246A(a), and, therefore, the CIT(A) ought to have examined legality of the adjustment made under this intimation in the light of the scope of the section 200A. Learned CIT(A) has not done so. He has justified the levy of fees on the basis of the provisions of Section 234E. That is not the issue here. The issue is whether such a levy could be effected in the course of intimation under section 200A. The answer is clearly in negative. No other provision enabling a demand in respect of this levy has been pointed out to us and it is thus an admitted position that in the absence of the enabling provision under section 200A, no such levy could be effected. As intimation under section 200A, raising a demand or directing a refund to the tax deductor, can only be passed within one year from the end of the financial year within which the related TDS statement is filed, and as the related TDS statement was filed on 19th February 2014, such a levy could only have been made at best within 31st March 2015. That time has already elapsed and the defect is thus not curable even at this stage. In vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
