TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 757
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... U/s. 234E of the act." 3. There are 9 appeals filed by the assessee pertaining to levy of fees u/s. 234E for delay in filing quarterly statements of deduction of taxes u/s. 200(3) on different quarter period from assessment years 2013-14 to 2015- 16. As the identical issue involved in all the appeals of the assesse, therefore, ITA 324/Ahd/2018 is being taken as lead case and its finding will be applicable to all the remaining appeals of the assessee. 4. Brief facts of the case is that assessee has filed quarterly statement of tax deducted at source in form no. 26Q for all the above three years. The above statement was processed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Centralized Processing Cell TDS and has charged late filing fee of Rs. 5,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record carefully. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, it was brought to the notice of both the sides that jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Rajesh Kourani vs. Union of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137(Guj) held that section 234E of the act is a charging provision creating a charge for levy of fess for certain default in filing statements and also held that the fees prescribed u/s. 234E could be levied even without a regulatory provision being found in section 200A for computation of fees. We have noticed that rule 31A of IT rule laid down the time limit for filing quarterly statement for deduction of tax u/s. 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... noticed the relevant statutory provisions. The picture that emerges is that prior to 01.07.2012, the Act contained a single provision in section 272A providing for penalty in case of default in filing the statements in terms of section 200 or proviso to section 206C. Such penalty was prescribed at the rate of Rs. 100 for every day during which the failure continued. With effect from 01.06.2012, three major changes were introduced in the Act. Section 234E as introduced for the first time to provide for charging of fee for late filing of the statements. Such fee would be levied at the rate of Rs. 200/- for every day of failure subject to the maximum amount of tax deductible or collectible as the case may be. Section 271H was also introduced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1), the new clause-c permits the authority to compute the fee, if any, payable by the assessee under section 234E of the Act and by virtue of clause-d, adjust the said sum against the amount paid under the various provisions of the Act. 19. In plain terms, section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing mechanism for processing a statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustments, which are, as noted earlier, arithmetical or prima-facie in nature. With effect from 01.06.2015, this provision specifically provides for computing the fee payable under section 234E of the Act. On the other hand, section 234E is a charging provision creating a charge for levying fee for certain defaults in filing the statements. Under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... always open for the Revenue to charge the fee in terms of section 234E of the Act. By amendment, this 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 154 of the Act and is also appealable under section 246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this situation also would be obviated. Even prior to 01.06.2015, it was always open ....