TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act in Quarter 4 in the A.Y.2013-2014, for Quarters 1 to 4 in the assessment year 2014-2015 and for Quarters 1 to 4 in the assessment year 2015- 2016 and allow the appeals filed by the assessee. For Quarter-1 in assessment year 2016-2017 we considering the amendment to Section 200(3) of the Act and applicability to the present case of the assessee does not fall under the purview of amendment as the first quarter for the assessment year 2016-2017 ends on 30.06.2015 and the amendment is effective from 01.06.2015. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessee is liable to pay the late fee as levied for the assessment year 2016-2017. Accordingly, we uphold the orders of lower authorities and dismiss the ground of appeal of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Community Health Centre, ITA No.31/CTK/2017, order dated 14.02.2018 and further submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee in respect of levy of late fee u/s.234E of the Act, which fact has not been controverted by the DR 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that on similar issue the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has decided the levy of late fee u/s.234E of the Act in Community Health Centre, ITA No.31/CTK/2017, order dated 14.02.2018, at page 2, observing as under:- 7. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Glee Pharma Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos.161 to 163/CTK/2016, order dated 28.08.2017, has held as under :- 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w which is in favour of the Revenue. On a query from the bench as to whether the jurisdictional High Court i.e. Hon'ble Orissa High Court has passed any orders in respect to the LIS before us. The Ld. DR fairly conceded that there is no order of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court on the issue in hand before us. It is well settled that when there is no order of the Jurisdictional High Court on the issue before us, the Tribunal will follow the order of the High Court which is in favour of the assessee (CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC)). In such a scenario, we are inclined to follow the order of the Karnataka High Court which has been brought to our knowledge by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 7. The facts in Fatehraj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances, 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, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest. 23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act while processing the statement under section 200A of the Act and not before. Therefore, respectfully relying the order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the impugned intimation of the lower authorities levying fee under section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly the intimation under section 200A as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in so far as levy of fee under section 234E is set aside and fee levied u/s 243E in all the appeals are ordered to be deleted. However, the other adjustments made by the AO in the impugned intimation shall stand as such. 6. In the appeals before us, the financial year involved is 2013-14. Therefore, respectfully following the preceden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
