TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of quarters involved and the actual date of filing of the statements, we find that the financial years involved are F.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. As noticed that the actual date of filing of TDS statements belatedly predominantly happened before 01.06.2015 only. In some cases the TDS statements were furnished belatedly i.e. after 01.06.2015. In any case, the defaults in all these quarters of 111 cases by the assessees occurred in the period before 01.06.2015. Therefore, in view of the precedents, the late filing fees charged by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law for want of jurisdiction. We direct the AO to examine closely the facts, dates of defaults, claims of the assessee etc once again and ensure that the above law is correctly applied to the facts of the present set of 111 cases. In case, the default pertains to the period later to 01.06.2015, the provisions for late filing fees u/s 234E r.w.s. 200A of the Act attract. - 208 To 233/NAG/2019, 246, 247, 248 To 268/NAG/2019, 276 To 298/NAG/2019, 299/NAG/2019, 333 To 349/NAG/2019, 350/NAG/2019, 371 To 374/NAG/2019, 371 To 374/NAG/2019, 380 To 383/NAG/2019, 384/NAG/2019 And 385/NAG/2019, 01/NAG/2020 To 06/NAG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late filing fees could be charged u/s 234E of the Act in respect of TDS statements which were filed prior to 01.06.2015 or after the said date. Therefore, the Revenue Authorities could not have levied late filing fees u/s 234E of the Act. 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that in these set of appeals, the respective Ld. CIT (Appeals) had dismissed these appeals filed before them on the ground of substantial late filing fees of the appeals and without going into the merits of the cases. 6. We have heard both the sides on this issue of unavailability of enabling the provisions to the Assessing Officer for levy of late filing fees on the assessee in respect of defaults of non-filing of TDS statement for the period prior to 01.06.2015. It is undisputed fact that the provisions of section 234E of the Act was originally brought into Statute w.e.f. 01.7.2012 by the Finance Act, 2012. However, the un-amended provisions of section 200A of the Act were not to provide the powers to the officers to charge the late filing fees. In principle, the provisions of section 234E of the Act enables the officers for the procedure to levy late filing fees when the assessee failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is support. Coming to the legal precedent on this issue. Relying on the decisions of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital vs. DCIT vide ITA No.651/PUN/2018 and others dated 25.10.2018, in the case of C M Farming Ltd. vs. ACIT vide ITA Nos.2008 to 2017/PUN/2017 dated 06.11.2019, ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer suffers from lack of jurisdictional power in respect of charging of late filing fee for the assessee s defaults for the period upto 01.06.2015, the date of amendment (supra). We have also held that the TDS statements furnished for the said period subsequent to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer compute late filing fee on the said belated TDS statements. This is a law so far as specific issue is concerned as on date. The relevant extract from the said judgements and other decisions are as follows. A. C M Farming Ltd. (supra) : 7. The contention of Shri Kishore Phadke, the Ld.A.R. is that AO has no jurisdiction to charge late fee u/s 234E of the Act for the reason that there was no enabling procedure for computation of late fee u/s 200A of the Act concerning the year under consideration. Further, he submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laid down by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka (supra), there is no merit in observations of CIT(A) that in the present case, where the returns of TDS were filed for each of the quarters after 1 st day of June, 2015 and even the order charging late filing fees was passed after June, 2015, then the same are maintainable, since the amendment had come into effect. The CIT(A) has overlooked the fact that notices under section 200A of the Act were issued for computing and charging late filing fees under section 234E of the Act for the period of tax deducted prior to 1st day of June, 2015. The same cannot be charged by issue of notices after 1st day of June, 2015 even where the returns were filed belatedly by the deductor after 1st June, 2015, where it clearly related to the period prior to 01.06.2015. 16. We hold that the issue raised in the present bunch of appeals is identical to the issue raised before the Tribunal in different bunches of appeals and since the amendment to section 200A of the Act was prospective in nature, the Assessing Officer while processing TDS returns / statements for the period prior to 01.06.2015 was not empowered to charge late filing fees under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was provided to the Authorities by inserting Clause (c) to Section 200A(1) of the Act w.e.f. 01.06.2015. There are plethora of cases which decided this issue that if TDS statements were filed prior to 01.06.2015 then there cannot be any levy of late fees u/s.234E of the Act. That however, TDS statements filed after 01.06.2015 would attract the late filing fees as per Section 234E of the Act. We further observe that in these instant cases before us, in some of the cases, TDS statements were filed prior to 01.06.2015 while in some other cases, they were filed after 01.06.2015. This is the position on merits. That however, the Ld. CIT(Appeal)‟s in their respective orders has not dealt with the merits of these cases and has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the ground that there is substantial delay in filing of these appeals and also for the reason that the reasonableness attributed to that delay could not be established by the assessees therein. 8. We find that the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Nehru Vs. ACIT (2018) 103 CCH 0231 ISCC has held that even if there is substantial delay in filing of appeals it can be condoned on the ground that it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
