TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member For the Assessee : Shri N.V. Manohar Naidu, CA. For the Revenue: Shri Venudhar Godesi, JCIT, DR. ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeals was filed by the assessee against separate orders dated 25/03/2022 u/s. 250 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi relating to Assessment Years 2013- 14 to 2015-16. 2. All issue raised in the present appeals are in respect of levy of interest u/s. 234E for filing TDS returns belatedly. 2.1 The Assessee filed statement of tax deducted at source (TDS) for various quarters in Form No. 26Q for different quarterly years in FY 2012-13 to 2014-15 (relevant to AY 2013-14 to 2015-16). The statement was processed by CPC TDS, Bengaluru. There was a delay in filing the TDS statement and the Ld.AO by intimation u/s. 200A of the Act levied late fee u/s. 234E of the Act. 2.2 The Ld.DR was of the view that, u/s. 234E of the Act, if there is a delay in filing statement of TDS within the prescribed time then the person responsible for making payment and filing return of TDS is liable to pay by way of fee a sum of Rs.200/- per day during which the failure continues. 2.3 Aggrieved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of processing of statements under sub-section (1), the Board may make a scheme for centralised processing of statements of tax deducted at source to expeditiously determine the tax payable by, or the refund due to, the deductor as required under the said subsection. 4. Clause (c) to (f) of section 200A(1) was substituted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. The Assessee contended that AO could levy fee u/s. 234E of the Act while processing a return of TDS filed u/s. 200(3) of the Act only by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 200A(1)(c), (d) (f) of the Act and those provisions came into force only from 1.6.2015 and therefore the authority issuing intimation u/s. 200A of the Act while processing return of TDS filed u/s. 200(3) of the Act, could not levy fee u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of statement of TDS filed prior to 1.6.2015. The Assessee, thus, challenged the validity of charging of fee u/s. 234E of the Act. The Assessee relied on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 wherein the Hon ble Karnataka High Court held that amendment made u/s. 200A providing that fee u/s. 234E of the Act cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omputing besides other, fee payable under section 234E for late filing of the statements. 20. Even in absence of section 200A of the Act with introduction of section 234E, it was always open for the Revenue to demand and collect the fee for late filing of the statements. Section 200A would merely regulate the manner in which the computation of such fee would be made and demand raised. In other words, we cannot subscribe to the view that without a regulatory provision being found for section 200A for computation of fee, the fee prescribed under section 234E cannot be levied. Any such view would amount to a charging section yielding to the machinery provision. If at all, the recasted clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A would be in nature of clarificatory amendment. Even in absence of such provision, as noted, it was 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 pow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. The assessee contended that AO could levy fee u/s. 234E of the Act while processing a return of TDS filed u/s. 200(3) of the Act only by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 200A(1)(c), (d) (f) of the Act and those provisions came into force only from 1.6.2015 and therefore the authority issuing intimation u/s. 200A of the Act while processing return of TDS filed u/s. 200(3) of the Act, could not levy fee u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of statement of TDS filed prior to 1.6.2015. The assessee, thus, challenged the validity of charging of fee u/s. 234E of the Act. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 wherein the Hon ble Karnataka High Court held that amendment made u/s. 200A providing that fee u/s. 234E of the Act could be computed at the time of processing of return and issue of intimation has come into effect only from 1.6.2015 and had only prospective effect and therefore, no computation of fee u/s. 234E of the Act for delayed filing of return of TDS while processing a return of TDS u/s. 234E of the Act could have been made for tax d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
