9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2) The prayer before the CIT (A) is to condone the delay. However, the CIT exceeded by passing the impugned order by discussing & arriving the validity of Section 234 E for which he has taken the protections of Section 292 B. In the given case, though the prayer before the CIT (A) is to condone the delay despite adhering the prayer by the CIT (A) has gone beyond the same by stating in the impugned order that Section 234 E will applicable before 01/06/2015 also. 3) It is submitted that, a new section 234 E r.w.s. 200A(1) has been made to provide, for effective deterrence by providing levy of fees @ Rs. 200/- per day during 2012, in case of delayed filing of return. 4) Since, many courts held that there was no enabling provision u/s. 200A of the act before 01/06/2015, to levy fees u/s. 234E of the act & the said u/s. 200A was amended w.e.f. 01/06/2015, which specifically provides levy of late filing fees u/s. 234E of the act, while processing the return under section 200A of the act. 5) By the above amendment any notice / intimation / order issued for the period before 01/06/2015, for belated filing of returns will not attr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 234E, 200A & 292B, Vegetable Product Ltd. has no application in this appeal. In the faceless regime, the CIT(A)/NFAC has to take identical decision on identical issues in compliance to guarantee provided under article 14 of the constitution. In view these findings, it is held that the AO was mandatorily required to levy & collect such fee as mandated u/s 234E of the Act even prior to 01.06.2015 and the defect of not passing a separate order u/s 234E but instead including the late fee in the intimation u/s 200A, is cured by protection provided u/s 292B of the Act. Accordingly, it is held that the intimation u/s 200A for the AY in question is legally valid. The levy of fee is confirmed. The ground against such levy is dismissed''. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard ld. Counsel for the assessee and ld.DR. We have perused orders of the authorities below. We find that the issue involved in the present appeals filed by the assessee is on levy of late fee under section 234E of the Act, for belated filing of quarterly TDS returns beyond prescribed date and this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n improving the compliance in respect of timely submission of TDS/TCS statement by the deductor or collector. Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 inserted section 200A in the Act which provides for processing of TDS statements for determining the amount payable or refundable to the deductor. However, as section 243E was inserted after the insertion of section 200A in the Act, the existing provisions of section 200A of the Act does not provide for determination of fee payable under section 234E of the Act at the time of processing of TDS statements. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the provisions of section 200A of the Act so as to enable computation of fee payable under section 234E of the Act at the time of processing of TDS statement under section 200A of the Act. Currently, the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Act enable the deductor to furnish TDS correction statement and consequently, section 200A of the Act allows processing of the TDS correction statement. However, currently, there does not exist any provision for allowing a collector to file correction statement in respect of TCS statement which has been furnished. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt advanced his arguments on the aspect of the imposition of late fee by applying Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act retrospectively. This Court is not in agreement with the said submissions of the respondent. Since, there was no provision for imposing the late fee under Section 234E of the Act while filing and processing the TDS returns under Section 200A of the Act, clause (c) to Sub-Section (1) to Section 200A was introduced with effect from 01.07.2012. Therefore, the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is rejected by this Court. 16. Further it was stated by the respondent that they have no power to waive the late fee and only the Commissioner of Income Tax is empowered to pass the revised order by proper application of provision of Section 264C of the Act. 17. In view of the above, it is made clear that the respondent had had imposed the late fee only under Section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2015-2015. However, Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under Section 200A of the Act, when they have processed the application for TDS under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
