TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... countant Member And Sh. N.K.Choudhry, Judicial Member Appellant by: Sh. Y.K. Sud, (Ld. C.A.) Respondent by: Sh. S.S. Kanwal (Ld. DR) ORDER N.K.Choudhry: The instant appeal has been preferred by the assessee, on feeling aggrieved against the order dated 28.04.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Bathinda, in Appeal No.139-IT/CIT(A)/BTI/15-16 for Asst. Year:2014-15. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal. 1.) That the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the late filing fee of ₹ 49,400/- levied by the DCIT (TDS) Central Processing Cell u/s 234E. 2.) That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no power with the DCIT, Central Proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second quarterly statement relevant to the Financial Year:2014-15 was filed on 19th June, 2015 by the assessee which was processed on 23rd June, 2015 and TDS, CPC levied a late fee of ₹ 49,400/- while issuing order u/s 200A of the Act which was challenged by the assessee by filing first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the instant appeal and in support of its case submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the late filing fee of ₹ 49,400/- levied by the DCIT, (TDS), Central Processing Cell u/s 234 E. Further failed to appreciate that there is no power with the aforesaid aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecently, while dealing with the similar and identical issue, in ITA No. 110(Asr)/2017, we considered the judgment passed in the case of SIBIA HEALTHCARE (P) Ltd. (supra) and deleted the late fee concerning to period prior to amendment. Even the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi Ors. vs. Union of India (supra) while dealing with the same issue and analyzed the amendment dated 1st June, 2015 and construed that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect-Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under section 234E could not be made in purported exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
