9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of issuance of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought by the assessee. Since the issue in appeal is decided by this Tribunal in several cases, this appeal is disposes off on hearing the Ld.DR. 3. We have heard Ld.DR, perused the orders of the authorities below and we find that an identical issue came up in batch of appeals before the Pune Bench of this Tribunal and by order dated 23.9.2016 after analysing various case laws on the issue it was held that, prior to 1.6.2015 late fee u/s 234E cannot be charged while processing quarterly return u/s 200A of the Act observing as under: "28. The perusal of Memo explaining the provision relating to insertion of clause (c) to section 200A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a person did not exist when section 234E of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012. The power to charge fees under the provisions of section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS statements, was dwelled upon by the Legislature by way of insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Accordingly, we hold that where the Assessing Officer has processed the TDS statements filed by the deductor, which admittedly, were filed belatedly but before insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act w.e.f. 01 .06.2015, then in such cases, the Assessing Officer is not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS returns filed by the deductor. 29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Legislature to provide mechanism for the Assessing Officer to charge and collect such fees. In the absence of enabling provisions, the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS statements, even if the said statements are belated, is not empowered to charge the fees under section 234E of the Act. The amendment was brought in by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01 .06.2015 and such an amendment where empowerment is given to the Assessing Officer to levy or charge the fees cannot be said to be clarificatory in nature and hence, applicable for pending assessments. 31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has explained the general principle concerning retrospectivity and have held that "of the various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent was made by way of insertion of clause (c) to section 200A of the Act. In such scenario, it cannot be said that insertion made by section 200A(1 )(c) of the Act is retrospective in nature, where the Legislature was aware that the fees could be charged under section 234E of the Act as per Finance Act, 2012 and also the provisions of section 200A of the Act were inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, under which the machinery was provided for the Assessing Officer to process the TDS statements filed by the assessee. The insertion categorically being made w.e.f. 01.06.2015 lays down that the said amendment is prospective in nature and cannot be applied to processing of TDS returns I statements prior to 01.06.2015. 32. We further fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all these appeals does not stand and the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section 234E of the Act is not valid and the same is deleted. The intimation issued by the Assessing Officer was beyond the scope of adjustment provided under section 200A of the Act and such adjustment could not stand in the eye of law." 4. Following this order of the Pune Bench, the Coordinate Bench of the Mumbai Bench in the case of Asian Pipes & Profiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assessing Officer, TDS Ward in ITA Nos.4740 and 4741/Mum/2016 dated 1.3.2017 held as under: "6.2 Following the above referred decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Gajanan Constructions and others in ITA Nos. 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
