TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sri.B.Sajjive, Sr.AR ORDER This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dated 11.02.2020. The relevant assessment year is 2013-2014. 2. The solitary issue raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming levy u/s 234E of the I.T.Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follow: Against the TDS / TCS return filed in Form 24Q For Q4 in financial year 2012-2013 on 05.07.2016, the CPC-TDS has sent an intimation u/s 200A of the I.T.Act vide order dated 08.07.2016. In the said intimation, late filing fee u/s 234E of the I.T.Act amounting to ₹ 2,07,965 was levied. 4. Aggrieved by the order imposing fee u/s 234E of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi Vs Union of India[2016]73taxmann.com 252 which laid down that amendment made Under Section 200A could be termed as conferring substantive power upon authority and was held to be having prospective effect, hence no computation of fee for demand or intimation for fee under Section 234E could have been made for TDS deducted for respective assessment years prior to 01.06.2015. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that imposition of Section 234E for the Assessment Years prior to 01.06.2015 is illegal and invalid. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in not following the ratio laid down by Bangalore Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot applies to Assessment Years prior to 01.06.2015. 7. The Appellant prays that he may be permitted to raise supplementary and additional grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 8. The appellant therefore prays that suitable relief may be give I by deleting the levy of late filing U/s 234E of ₹ 2,07,970/-. 6. The assessee relied on the grounds raised. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders passed by the Income-tax authorities. 7. At the very outset, I noticed that the issue raised in this appeal is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Sarala Memorial Hospital v. ITO (TDS) in WP(C) No.37775 of 2018 (judgment dated 18th Dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 could not have been made. 10. But the Gujarat High Court has taken a contrary stand in Rajesh Kourani, It has held: In plain terms, Section 200A is a machinery provision providing mechanism for processing a statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustments which are, as noted earlier. arithmetical or prima fade in nature. With effect from 1.6.2015, this provision specifically provides for computing the fee payable under Section 234E. On the other hand, Section 234E is the charging provision creating a charge for levying fee for certain defaults in filing the statements. Under no circumstances a machinery provision can override or overrule a charging provision. Section 200A does not create any charge in any man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
