TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the period prior to 01.06.20 15 was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Therefore, the intimations issued by the AO under section 200A of the Act in these appeals are unsustainable and the demand raised by way of charging of the fees under section 234E of the Act not being valid is deleted - we hold that the AO is not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act by way of intimations issued under section 200A of the Act in respect of defaults before 01.06.2015 - Decided in favour of assessee. - WRIT PETITION No.850/2017 & WRIT PETITION Nos. 15603-15613/2018 (T – IT) - - - Dated:- 10-4-2018 - THE HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA For the Appellant : SMT VANI.H, ADV. For the Respondent : SRI K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermine the fee under Section 234E in respect of the assessment year of the earlier period and the return filed for the said respective assessment years namely all assessment years and the returns prior to 1.6.2015. It was submitted that, when no express authority was conferred by the statute under Section 200A prior to 1.6.2015 for computation of any fee under Section 234E nor the determination thereof, the demand or the intimation for the previous period or previous year prior to 1.6.2015 could not have been made. 21. However, if Section 234E providing for fee was brought on the statute book, keeping in view the aforesaid purpose and the intention then, the other mechanism provided for computation of fee and failure for payment of fee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondent-Revenue that insertion of clause (c) to (f) under Section 200A(1) should be treated as retroactive in character and not prospective. 23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid. 24. If the facts of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r demand/intimation under Section 200A of the Act for the TDS for the period prior to 31 01.04.2015 is permitted to be reopened for claiming refund. The judgment will have prospective effect accordingly. It is further observed that the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E shall remain open to be considered by the Division Bench and shall not get concluded by the order of the learned Single Judge. 3. Learned counsel Smt.Vani.H appearing for the petitioner would submit that the orders/communications at Annexures-A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H relating to the periods prior to 01.06.2015 issued by the third respondent under Section 200A of the Act deserve to be quashed. However, the learned counsel fairly submit that in as much as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
