TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delayed. AO has levied the late fees u/s 234E and interest in sum on the basis of an intimation u/s 200A - As in the case of Fatehraj Singhavi [ 2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] had observed that the notice u/s 200A of the Act computing fee u/s 234E of the Act would be effective in respect of the period of tax deduction subsequent to 01.06.2015. Since levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act was made available in Section 200A therefore, we are of the considered view that no fees u/s 234E could have been charged in the course of processing of the statement of tax deducted at source u/s 200A for the period prior to 01.06.2015, therefore, in the said circumstances, the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable, hence, we set aside the find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of TDS statement for default in payment of late fees, except any arithmetical error, or incorrect claim, or default in payment of interest any I'DS payable or refundable etc before 01/06/2015. Hence late fees for TDS quarterly statement cannot be recovered by way of processing under section sec 200A. Therefore, demand notice cannot be issued under this section, hut if issued. then it is illegal. Hence liable to be cancelled. 3. That the Provisions of Sec.204 of the Act has made the person responsible for Sec. 190 to Sec. 203AA and Sec.285, this phrase does not cover Sec.234E, it means no one is responsible for default U/s 234E of the Act none can be held responsible to deposit it, hence levy of late fee u/s 234E in absence of aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ka in the case of Fatehraj Singhavi Vs. Union of India (2016) 289 CTR 602 (Kar). However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. It is not in dispute that the assessee has filed the statement of tax deducted at source in Form No.26Q for the F.Y.2014-15 delayed. The AO has levied the late fees u/s 234E of ₹ 16,360/- and interest in sum of ₹ 1,977/- on the basis of an intimation u/s 200A of the Act. The Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatehraj Singhavi Vs. Union of India (2016) 289 CTR 602 (Kar) had observed that the notice u/s 200A of the Act computing fee u/s 234E of the Act would be effective in respect of the period of ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and finding ourselves as being in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Tata Rice Mills (supra), hence are of the considered view that the ACIT-TDS, CPC Ghaziabad in the case before us had erred in levying fees under Sec.234E in respect of tax deducted at source for the four quarters prior to 01.06.2015 in respect of the captioned years viz. A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 and A.Y.2015-16. We thus not being persuaded to subscribe to the view taken by the CIT(A) who had upheld the levy of fees by the A.O, thus set aside his order and vacate the demand raised by the A.O under Sec.234E in the hands of the assessee for all the four quarters for the year under consideration. 5. Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
