9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8223;) for A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016-17. As the assessee in the captioned appeals has assailed the levy of fees charged under Sec. 234E of the Act, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off by way of a consolidated order. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee company had delayed the filing of the statements of tax deduction at source for the A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016-17, as a result whereof, the ACIT, Central Processing Cell-TDS had levied late filing fees under Sec.234E of the Act, as under : FORM F. Yr QTR DUE DATE DATE OF FILING DELAY DAYS Penalty u/s 234E (in Rs.) 26Q 2012-13 2 15.10.2012 25.02.2013 133 26,600 26Q 2012-13 3 15.01.2013 21.03.2013 65 13,000 26Q 2012-13 4 15.05.2013 18.07.2013 64 12,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short "A.R‟) for the assessee at the very outset of the hearing of the appeals submitted, that as the section enabling levy of fees under Sec.234E was made available in Sec. 200A with effect from 01.06.2015, therefore, the ACIT, CPC, Ghaziabad had erred in levying fees under the said statutory provision in A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15. Insofar the levy of fees under Sec.234E for A.Y. 2016-17 was concerned, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that no infirmity as regards the levy of fees for the said year did emerge from the order of the ACIT, CPC, Ghaziabad. In order to drive home his aforesaid contention that now when Sec.234E e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said respective quarters in Forms 26Q/24Q, therefore, the ACIT, CPC had rightly levied fees under Sec.234E in its hands. 6. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as the judicial pronouncements relied upon by them. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the records, that the assessee had delayed the filing of the statements of tax deduction at source in "Forms 26Q/24Q" for the aforementioned quarters pertaining to the captioned years under consideration i.e A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15, A.Y. 2015-16 and A.Y 2016-17. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India (2016) 28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Sec. 200A of the I.T. Act. It was observed by the Tribunal that as the amendment made under Sec.200A was effective from 01.06.2015 and applicable prospectively, hence no computation of fee under Sec.234E could be made for the TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015. 7. We have given a 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
