TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA.03,06 And 07 / Ag/ 2018, 4&8/Agr/2018, 05/ Agr/2018, 09/Ag/2018, 10 & 11 / Ag/2018, 16/Ag/2018, 17/Ag/2018, 18/Ag/2018, 12-15/Ag/2018, 34-36/Ag/2018, 19,21,22 & 23/Ag/2018, 24/Ag/2018, 25/Ag/2018, 26/Ag/2018, 27/Ag/2018, 28, 37 & 38 /Ag/2018, 29 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2018 - ITA.03,06 And 07 / Ag/ 2018, 4 8/Agr/2018, 05/ Agr/2018, 09/Ag/2018, 10 11 / Ag/2018, 16/Ag/2018, 17/Ag/2018, 18/Ag/2018, 12-15/Ag/2018, 34-36/Ag/2018, 19,21,22 23/Ag/2018, 24/Ag/2018, 25/Ag/2018, 26/Ag/2018, 27/Ag/2018, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time causing which caused delay in filing these appeals by the concerned appellate branches. We find that the assessee has reasonable cause for delay in filing the aforesaid 37 appeals out of 88 appeals. Therefore, the delay in filing these appeals is condoned accordingly. 4. Since a common issue is involved in all these appeals relating to levy of late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 5. In these cases, the appellants have deposited TDS in Central Government account as per TDS provisions of the Act. They are required to file quarterly TDS returns (statements) intimating the tax deducted at source from various payments made to various persons in each q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) to sub Section (1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E of the Act, 1961. He further submitted that prior 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act. The provision of Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could not be applied retrospectively, unless it is expressely provided in the Act, to levy the late fee for any delay in filing the TDS statement for the period prior to 01.06.2015. For this purpose, the appellant rely on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC). ii) Sudarshan Goyal vs DCIT (TDS) ITA No.442/Agr/2017. iii) Fatehra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions u/s 200A of the Act, such levy of late fee is not valid relying on the decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC), Sudarshan Goyal vs DCIT (TDS) ITA No.442/Agr/2017 and Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UOI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Karn) (HC). The decisions relied on by the Ld. DR are distinguishable on facts, as the issue involved in those cases pertains to interest u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts, we have decided the same issue in the assessee s own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DCIT (TDS) , in ITA No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the assessee has been rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court qua the assessee. 5. In Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others (supra) it has been held, inter alia, as follows: 22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Under the circumstances, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
