TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of fee u/s 234E could not be made - the levy of the fee is cancelled. Also see SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI AND OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ 2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favor of assessee. - I.T.A Nos. 128 to 134/ASR/2020 - - - Dated:- 24-9-2021 - Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A. For the Revenue : Sh. S. M. Surednranath D. R. ORDER PER BENCH: This bunch of appeals is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), against upholding levy of fee u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter short the Act ). 2. Since, there is a common issue being involved in all these appeals, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod prior to 1.06.2015, he can be absolved from such levy even though there is a continuous default, on his part even after 1.6.2015. In our view, the AO has acquired the jurisdiction to levy the fees as on 1.06.2015 and therefore, any return filed and processed after 1.6.2015 will fall within his jurisdiction where on occurrence of any default on part of the assessee, he can levy fee so mandated u/s 234E of the Act. Therefore, irrespective of the period to which the quarterly return pertains, where the return is filed after 1.6.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act. At the same time, in terms of determining the period for which fees can be levied, only saving could be that for the period of delay failing prior to 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Though pertaining to F.Y. 2012-13, the above TDS statements have been filed by the appellant after 01.06.2015. These were also processed by CPC after 01.06.2015, i.e, after the amendment to section 200A of the Act w.e.f 01.06.2015 empowering the AO to levy fee u/s 234E of the Act as part of the adjustments permissible u/s 200A of the Act. It is a case where there is a continuing default till after 01.06.2015. The AO was thus well within his jurisdiction to levy fee u/s 234E of the Act. The levy of fee u/s 234E is, therefore, upheld. However, Ld AO is directed to levy late filing fee u/s 234E from 01.06.2015 to the date of filing of the regular TDS statement. Grounds of appeal 1 and 2 for the above three appeals are partly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 2014-15/Q3 19.09.2015 22.09.2015 45600 10515/2019-20 2014-15/Q4 25.09.2015 30.09.2015 24800 Pertaining to F.Y. 2013-14, the above TDS statements have been filed by the appellant before 01.06.2015. These were also processed before 01.06.2015, i.e, before the amendment to section 200A of the Act w.e.f 01.06.2015 empowering the AO to levy fee u/s 234E of the Act as part of the adjustments permissible u/s 200A of the Act. In view of the above facts, the levy of late filing fee u/s 234E cannot be upheld and is deleted. Grounds of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 131/Asr/2020 2014-15 Q-1 22/09/2015 5. 132/Asr/2020 2014-15 Q-2 30/09/2015 6. 133/Asr/2020 2014-15 Q-3 22/09/2015 7. 134/Asr/2020 2014-15 Q-4 30/09/2015 6. On similar facts, the same issue has been adjudicated by the Co-ordinated bench ITAT Agra,in the case of Sudershan Goyal vs. DCIT (TDS) in ITA No. 442/Agra/2017 vide order dtd. 09.04.2018. The relevant part of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 5. In Shri FatehrajSinghvi and Others (supra) it has been held, inter alia, as follows: 22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Under the circumstances, we find that substitution made by clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
