TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccountant Member And Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR ORDER N.S.Saini, AM These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the CIT(A)-3, Bhubaneswar all dated 3rd May, 2016 for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarter of financial year 2012-13 and 1st and 2nd quarter of financial year 2013-14. 2. The common issue involved in these appeals is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the DCIT, Central Processing Cell-TDS, Gahjiabad levying late fee u/s.234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, an adjournment petition was filed for adjournment of the hearing on the ground that the A.R. is othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself, it was pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that this issue is no longer res integra since the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi v. Union of India (289 CTR 0602) has held that w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the Parliament by way of an amendment to Section 200A of the Act, has empowered the AO to levy fee u/s 234E of the Act while processing u/s 200A of the Act. Therefore, prior to that date i.e. 1.6.2015, the AO had no authority to levy fee u/s 234E of the Act. Therefore, according to the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, that the AO erred in levying the fee u/s 234E of the Act which been wrongly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) need to deleted. 6. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act in purported exercise of the power u/s 200A of the Act. The assessee challenged the levy of the fee and also the vires of the statute (Section 234E). The Hon'ble High Court did not make any finding in respect of the vires of the statute and the said issue was left open. However, the Hon'ble High Court held that prior to 01.06.2015, the AO while issuing intimation u/s 200A does not have the authority under law, to make any order u/s 243E of the Act and was pleased to delete the order of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held as follows In para 22 to 24 which is reproduced as under: 22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of the intimation given making demand of the fees in purported exercise of power under Section 200A, the same has necessitated the appellant-original petitioner to challenge the validity of Section 234E of the Act. In view of the reasons recorded by us hereinabove, when the amendment made under Section 200A of the Act which has come into effect on 1.6.2015 is held to be having prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for the fee under Section 234E could be made for the TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondentauthority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 1st quarter of financial year 2013-14 of ₹ 6,600/- and for the 2nd quarter of financial year 201314 of ₹ 12,400/-. As per the above quoted decision of this Bench of the Tribunal, the late fee is chargeable w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Therefore, the provisions of section 234E are not applicable in the financial years under consideration. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of this Tribunal, quoted above, we delete the levy of late fee u/s. 234E for the 2nd quarter of financial year 2012-13 at ₹ 49,200/-, for the third quarter of financial year 2012-13 at ₹ 30,800/-, for the 4th quarter of financial year 2012-13 at ₹ 6,800/- for the 1st quarter of financial year 2012-13 of ₹ 6,600/- and for the 2nd quarte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
