TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a favourable verdict in future, we cannot keep these appeals pending forever - Appeals are devoid of any merit and we accordingly reject the same. - ITA No. 869 to 890/Ahd/2018 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2018 - Pramod Kumar, AM And Ms. Madhumita Roy, JM For The Applicant : None For The Respondent : VK Singh ORDER Per Pramod Kumar, AM: 1. All these 22 appeals are directed against a common order dated 9th February, 2018 passed by the CIT(A) in respect of various quarters for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, upholding the levy of fees under section 234E of the Income-tax Act on account of delay in furnishing the statement of tax deduction at source. We will take up all these appeals together. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of applicable legal position. 4. As learned Departmental Representative rightly points out, there is no dispute that the issue in appeal is covered against the assessee by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court s judgment in the case of Rajesh Kourani vs. Union of India, reported in [2017] 83 taxmann.com 137 (Gujarat), wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows:- 16. We now come to the petitioner's central challenge viz. of non permissibility to levy fee under section 234E of the Act till section 200A of the Act was amended with effect from 01.06.2015. We have noticed the relevant statutory provisions. The picture that emerges is that prior to 01.07.2012, the Act contained a single provision in section 272A pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and filing of the statements more stringent. 18. In this context, we may notice that section 200A which pertains to processing of statements of tax deducted at source provides for the procedure once a statement of deduction of tax at source is filed by the person responsible to do so and authorizes the Assessing Officer to make certain adjustments which are prima-facie or arithmetical in nature. The officer would then send an intimation of a statement to the assessee. Prior to 01.06.2015, this provision did not include any reference to the fee payable under section 234E of the Act. By recasting sub-section (1), the new clause-c permits the authority to compute the fee, if any, payable by the assessee under section 234E of the Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to demand and collect the fee for late filing of the statements. Section 200A would merely regulate the manner in which the computation of such fee would be made and demand raised. In other words, we cannot subscribe to the view that without a regulatory provision being found for section 200A for computation of fee, the fee prescribed under section 234E cannot be levied. Any such view would amount to a charging section yielding to the machinery provision. If at all, the recasted clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A would be in nature of clarificatory amendment. Even in absence of such provision, as noted, it was always open for the Revenue to charge the fee in terms of section 234E of the Act. By amendment, this adjustment was bro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns are fulfilled. One of the conditions is that the tax with fee and interest is paid. The additional condition being that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date. 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goodwill. The Supreme Court referring to various provisions concerning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Gujarat High Court judgment (supra) is reversed either by larger bench or the Supreme Court. 6. However, in our considered view, the matter is clearly covered by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court s judgment. There is no good reason to keep the matter pending at this level. In case the assessee is aggrieved, it is indeed open to him to take the matter to the higher judicial forum; but, merely because some other appeal on similar ground could be pending before the Hon ble Courts above and the assessee has a chance to get a favourable verdict in future, we cannot keep these appeals pending forever. The issue being squarely covered against the assessee by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court s judgment in the case of Rajesh Kourani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
