TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondents : Shyam Prasad, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER BENCH These two appeals filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 2014-15, arise from order of the CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad dated 18-04-2018, in proceedings under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act . 2. The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-8 Ahmedabad in confirming the levy of late filing fees for form 26Q and form 24Q of Financial Year 2012-13 and 2013-14 u/s. 200A r.w.r. 234E of the I.T. Act. 3. The brief fact of the case is that ACIT CPC TDS, Gaziabad, the Assessing Officer has levied fees u/s. 234E of the Act for delay in furnishing the submission of tax deduction at source and levied fees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 34E cannot be enforced prior to 1.6.2015. 5.2 On plain reading of Section 234E, it is clear that this is charging section and Section 200A(1) is a machinery section. Charging section cannot be subservient to the machinery section. Further, I find that this view has also been upheld by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani vs. Union of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Gujarat), judgment delivered on 20.06.2017. In this case, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court while comprehensively dealing with the issue have clearly held that under no circumstances a machinery provision can override the charging provision. Relevant part of the decision is reproduced as below:- 19. In plain terms, section 200A of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made and demand raised. In other words, we cannot subscribe to the view that without a regulatory provision being found for section 200A for computation of fee, the fee prescribed under section 234E cannot be levied. Any such view would amount to a charging section yielding to the machinery provision. If at all, the recasted clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A would be in nature of clarificatory amendment Even in absence of such provision, as noted, it was always open for the Revenue to charge the fee in terms of section 234E of the Act. By amendment, the adjustment was brought within the fold of section 200A of the Act. This would have one direct effect. An order passed under section 200A of the Act is rectifiable under section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year from the due date. 21. counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contended that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C. Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of capital asset In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goodwill. The Supreme Court referring to various provision concerning charging and computing capital gain observed that none of the these provisions suggest that they include an asset in the acquisition of which no cost can be conceiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
