TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be that for the period of delay falling prior to 1.06.2015, there could not be any levy of fees as the assumption of jurisdiction to levy such fees have been held by the Courts to be prospective in nature. However, where the delay continues beyond 1.06.2015, AO is well within his jurisdiction to levy fees under section 234E for the period starting 1.06.2015 to the date of actual filing of the TDS return. In light of the same, in the instant case, the levy of fees under section 234E is upheld for the period 1.06.2015 to the date of actual filing of the TDS return which is 22.07.2015 and the balance fee so levied is hereby deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 764/JP/2017 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2019 - Shri Vijay Pal Rao, JM A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s seen that from the intimation issued u/s 200A that the TDS statement for the 4th quarter of the F.Y 2014-15 was processed on 30.07.2015. With effect from 01.06.2015, adjustments in respect of the fee paid u/s 234E can be made under clause (c) of Sub-section 1 of section 200A. As the TDS return of the appellant has become has been processed on 30.07.2015, therefore I am of the considered view that adjustment made under section 200(A)(1)(c) in respect of the fee levied u/s 234E is valid and in accordance with the provisions of law. Hence this ground of appeal is dismissed. 4. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted prior to amendment in section 200A of the Act w.e.f 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer had no authority to levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much prior to the amendment to section 200A of the Act w.e.f. 1.6.2015 empowering the Assessing officer levying the fees under section 234E of the Act. It is therefore not a case of continuing default where the assessee has defaulted in furnishing the TDS statement even after 1.6.2015 and thereafter, the demand for payment of fees under section 234E has been raised by the Assessing officer. In case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra), the Hon ble Karnataka High Court has held that the provisions of amended section 200A are prospective in nature. Further, the decision of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in case of M/s. Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan and Others (supra) as relied by ld. CIT (A) is in the context of validity of section 234E, but not in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 200A(1)(C) to levy fees under section 234E of the Act. Even though the quarterly return pertains to quarter ended 31.3.2015, the fact remains that there is a continuing default even after 1.6.2015 and the return was actually filed on 22.07.2015. The said provisions cannot be read to say that where an assessee file his return of income for the period falling after 1.6.2015 and there is a delay on his part to file the return in time, he will suffer the levy of fees, however, an assessee who has delayed the filing of the return of income even pertaining to the period prior to 1.06.2015, he can be absolved from such levy even though there is a continuous default on his part even after 1.6.2015. In our view, the AO has acquired the jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
