TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of all other cases where undisputedly, the TDS statements pertaining to the financial year 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 have been filed in year 2017 and intimation issued by the ACIT-TDS in December 2017. - ITA. No. 988-995/JP/2019 - - - Dated:- 22-1-2020 - Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM And Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, AM For the Assessee : Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv) Sh. Devang Gargieya (ITP) For the Revenue : Smt. Runi Pal ORDER PER BENCH: These are eight appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of ld. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 09.05.2019 for A.Y 2013-14 (2nd Qtr), 2013-14 (3rd Qtr), 2013-14 (4th Qtr), 2014-15 (1st Qtr), 2014- 15 (2nd Qtr), 2014-15 (3rd Qtr), 2014-15 (4th Qtr), 2015-16 (4th Qtr) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have gone through the order, statement of facts, grounds of appeal and written submissions carefully. It is seen that from the intimation issued u/s 200A that the TDS statement for the 2nd quarter of the F.Y. 2012-13 was processed on 04.12.2017. 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 been processed on 04.12.2017, 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. It was submitted by the ld AR that the only issue involved in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dment was made only from Finance Act, 2015. Hence where the AO did not have power to charge fees, such an intimation for demand of fees does not hold any authority. To interpret otherwise, shall have the effect of applying a prospective enactment retrospectively, which is not permissible in law. 6. In support, the ld AR has placed reliance on the decisions in case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602, Pune v. DCIT [2016] 182 TTJ 129 (Pune-Trib.), Shri Bhavesh Shantilal Sheth vs. ACIT TDS, CPC (ITA No. 6507/Mum/2017 dated 08.01.2019), M/s Sandeep Jhanwar Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 722 723/JPR/2016 dated 18.10.2016), Mentor India vs. DCIT (ITA No. 738/JP/2016 dated 09.12.2016), Geeta Star Hotels Resorts P. Ltd. vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by ACIT-TDS levying late filing fees under section 234E of the Act. The Assessing officer was thus well within his jurisdiction to levy fees under section 234E of the Act. The contention of the ld AR is that since the TDS statement pertains to the period i.e for the financial year 2012-13(quarter 2) even though the same has been filed in the year 2017, the Assessing officer is not empowered to levy late filing fees under section 234E of the Act. We are however unable to accept the aforesaid contention so raised by the ld AR as we find that at the time of processing of the TDS statement i.e, on 4.12.2017, the Assessing officer was empowered to levy such late filing fees, there is no provision to make a distinction between the TDS state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 jurisdiction to levy the fees as on 1.06.2015 and therefore, any return filed and processed after 1.6.2015 will fall within his jurisdiction where on occurrence of any default on part of the assessee, he can levy fee so mandated u/s 234E of the Act. Therefore, irrespective of the period to which the quarterly return pertains, where the return is filed after 1.6.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act. At the same time, in terms of determining the period for which fees can be levie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
