TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Parliament only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Therefore, late fees u/s 234E of the Act can be levied only prospectively w.e.f. 01.06.2015. In the circumstances, we direct the ACIT, CPC- TDS, Ghaziabad to delete the late fee being levied u/s 234E of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos.63 & 67 to 70/PUN/2023 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2023 - Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member And Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Y. S. Nagla For the Revenue : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde ORDER PER BENCH : These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ NFAC ] dated 28.11.2022 for the assessment year 2015-16 respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Being aggrieved by the above decision of the NFAC, the appellant is in appeal before us. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue in the present appeal relates to the levy of late fees u/s 234E of the Act. The ACIT, CPC- TDS, Ghaziabad had levied penalty u/s 234E of the Act for belated submission of tax deducted at source statement during the financial year 2014-15. It is only w.e.f. 01.06.2015 an amendment was made u/s 200A of the Act providing that fee u/s 234E could be computed at the time of processing of the return of income and intimation could be issued specifying the same payable by the dedutor as fee u/s 234E of the Act. The Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t cannot be said that the provisions of fee since creates a counter benefit or reciprocal benefit in favour of the defaulter in the rigors of the penal provision, the provisions of Section 234E would meet with the test of quid pro quo. 21. However, if Section 234E providing for fee was brought on the state 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 under Section 200A which has been brought about with effect from 1.6.2015 cannot be said as only by way of a regulatory mode or a regulatory mechanism but it can rather be termed as conferring substantive power upon the authority. It is true that, a regulatory mechanism by insertion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clause (c) to (f) under Section 200A(1) should be treated as retroactive in character and not prospective. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent-authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent. 25. As such, as recorded earlier, it is on account of the intimation received under Section 200A for making computation and demand of fees under Section 234E, the same has necessitated the appellant to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 234E. When the intimation of the demand notices under Section 200A is held to be without authority of law so far as it relates to computation and demand of fee under Section 234E, we find that the question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prior to 1.6.2015 are set aside. It is clarified that the present judgment would not be interpreted to mean that even if the payment of the fees under Section 234E already made as per demand/intimation under Section 200A of the Act for the TDS for the period prior to 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. 8. The ratio of the above decision was followed by the Coordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of (i) Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT, 73 taxmann. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
