Naunehal Primary School, Nanded V. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, (TDS) , Range-Nashik, Nashik

ITA 1489/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1737 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH GAWLI
• Assessee Lawyers: Y S NAGLE
• Keywords: Application of stay; Retrospective amendment; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO , AM . / ITA NO S . 1423 & 1489 /P U N/201 8 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 1 3 - 1 4 & 2014 - 15 NAUNEHAL PRIMARY SCHOOL MILL AREA, NANDED 431601 . / APPELLANT T AN: NSKNO3471G VS. THE JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, NASHIK . / RESPONDENT SA NOS.104 & 105/PUN/2018 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO S . 1423 & 1489/PUN/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013 - 14 & 2014 - 15 NAUNEHAL PRIMARY SCHOOL MILL AREA, NANDED 431601 . APP LICANT TAN: NSKNO3471G VS. THE JT. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, NASHIK . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI Y.S. NAGLE REVENUE BY : S HRI RAJESH GAWLI / DATE OF HEARING : 22 . 1 0 .201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02 . 1 1 .201 8 ITA NO S . 1423 & 1489 /P U N/2 0 1 8 SA NOS.104 & 105/PUN/2018 2 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : BOTH T HE APPEAL S FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDER S OF CIT (A) - 1 , AURANGABAD, BOTH DATED 22 .0 6 .201 8 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 201 3 - 1 4 AND 2014 - 15 AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 200 A OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE CAPTIONED STAY APPLICATIONS. 2. BOTH T HE APPEAL S RELATING TO SAME ASSESSEE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. HOWEVER, IN ORDER T O ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES, REFERENCE IS BEING MADE TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES IN ITA NO. 1423 /PUN/201 8, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 . THE STAY APPLICATIONS FILED IN BOTH THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE ALSO HEARD ALONG WITH APPEALS OF ASSESSEE. 3. T HE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1423 /PUN/201 8, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL: - THERE IS A TECHNICAL PROBLEM IN SUBMISSION OF FVU FILE, IF ANY CORRECTION IN CHALLAN DETAILS CARRIED OUT BY ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OUR CAS E THERE WAS A MISMATCH IN TAN SHOWN BY BANK IN CHALLAN. THE CORRECTION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT BEING REFLECTING ON OLTAS (ONLINE TAX ACCOUNTING SYSTEM) PORTAL OF TAX INFORMATION NETWORK. DUE TO THIS CSI FILE IS NOT BEING GENERATED AND CONSEQUE NTLY THE FVU FILE ALSO NOT VALIDATING, WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR SUBMISSION OF DATA TO TIN NSDL, THE AGENET OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT . THE CIT, APPEAL - 1, AURANGABAD IN THEIR ORDER NO ABD/CIT(A) - 1/TDS/302/2015016, DT.22/06/2018 AGREE WITH THE ABOVE TECHNICAL PROBLEM FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED, EVEN THOUGH THE APPEAL DISMISSED FOR THE REASON THAT THE INITIATE ACTION FOR CORRECTION IN CHALLAN DETAILS WAS DELAYED. SIR, THE GROUND CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWING IS NOT PROPER BECAUSE SO MANY EFFORTS TAKEN FOR CO RRECTION IN CHALLAN DETAILS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES / WIT H BANK BUT NOBODY WAS RESPONDED, THIS IS THE FACT. OUR GROUND FOR APPEAL IS THAT, THE TECHNICAL PROBLEM FACING BY ASSESSEE IS STILL CONTINUING. AS ON DATE ALSO THE TECHNICAL PROBLEM IS NOT SOLVED BY CPC - TDS, GHAZIABAD. WE APPEAL OR WAIVER OFF LATE FILING FEES ON THE GROUND THAT THE TECHNICAL PROBLEM WHICH IS STILL CONTINUES. ITA NO S . 1423 & 1489 /P U N/2 0 1 8 SA NOS.104 & 105/PUN/2018 3 4. THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE WHICH IS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST LEVY OF LATE FILING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. 5. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED AN INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT CHARGING LATE FILING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT AT 1,98,800/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING PRIMARY SCHOOL AT NANDED. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS ON SALARIES PAID TO THE TEACHERS FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 2013 AND THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED IN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. SI MILARLY, TDS WAS DEDUCTED ON SALARIES PAID TO THE TEACHERS FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY , 2013 BUT WHILE DEPOSITING THE TDS, TAN NUMBER WAS WRONGLY MENTIONED AS NSKNO3417G INSTEAD OF NSKNO3471G. CONSEQUENTLY, TDS DEPOSITED BY ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR ON ON LINE TAX ACCOUNTING SYSTEM (OLTAS) . FOR CARRYING OUT NECESSARY CORRECTION IN TAN, THE ASSESSEE SCHOOL HAD APPROACHED STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD IE BRANCH, NANDED WHERE THE TDS AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED. THE SAID BANK HAD CARRIED OUT NECESSARY CORRECTION IN THE C ORE BANKING SYSTEM AND ALSO ISSUED COMPUTERIZED RECEIPT SHOWING CORRECT TAN I.E. NSKNO34171G. HOWEVER, THE EFFECT OF CORRECTION IN TAN WAS NOT REFLECTED ON OLTAS . FOR CARRYING OUT NECESSARY CORRECTION ON OLTAS, THE ASSESSEE SCHOOL FIRST APPROACHED THE ITO, TDS, NANDED. BUT THE JURISDICTION OF ASSESSEE SCHOOL LIE S WITH ITO, TDS, NASHIK, THEREFORE THE ITO, TDS, NANDED WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO NECESSARY CORRECTION. FINALLY, THE NECESSARY CORRECTION IN TAN WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ITO, TDS, NASHIK. THE ASS ESSEE THUS, PLEADED THAT IT COULD NOT FILE THE TDS RETURN IN TIME BECAUSE OF ABOVE SAID REASONS. SUPPORTING CORRESPONDENCE IN THIS REGARD WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT CORRECTION / RECTIFICATION IN TAN WAS MADE ON 14.10.2015. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WA S NOT ITA NO S . 1423 & 1489 /P U N/2 0 1 8 SA NOS.104 & 105/PUN/2018 4 UNDERSTOOD HOW THE ASSESSEE COULD MAKE APPLICATION TO ITO (TDS), NANDED, WHEREAS ITS JURISDICTION WAS WITH ITO (TDS), NASHIK. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DE LAYED IN MAKING CORRECTION IN TAN NUMBERS BY ALMOST TWO YEARS AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN THE CASE OF SHREE NARAYANA GURU SMARAKA SANGAM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL VS. UNION OF INDIA/DCIT, CPC, GHAZIABAD IN WP(C) NO.30229 OF 20 13, DATED 14.12.2016, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT BY INCORPORATING SECTION 234E OF THE ACT LATE FEES HAD BECOME MANDATORY AND COULD NOT BE QUASHED BY CONSIDERING IT AS REASONABLE CAUSE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 273B OF THE ACT. HENCE, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE WAS DISMISS ED. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. THE FIRST PLEA RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS THE REASONABLE CAUSE IN THE CASE AND SECOND PLEA RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE OF ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING NO POWER TO CHARGE LATE FEES UND ER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT AS THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 200A(1) OF THE ACT TOOK PLACE FROM 01.06.2015. 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE HE ARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST LATE FILING CHARGES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WHILE ISSUING INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS PRIMARY SCHOOL AND HAD DEDUCTED TDS OUT OF SALARIES PAID AND WAS TO FURNISH TDS RETURNS / STATEMENTS WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD. HOWEVER, THERE WAS DEFAULT IN FURNISHING OF SAID TDS RETURNS BECAUSE OF WRONG MENTION OF TAN NUMBERS . AS WE HAVE REFERRED IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE, BECAUSE OF STEPS ITA NO S . 1423 & 1489 /P U N/2 0 1 8 SA NOS.104 & 105/PUN/2018 5 BEING TAKEN IN CORRECTION OF TAN NUMBERS BY THE AUTHORITY, THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING THE SAID TDS RETURNS. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) HAD PLEADED ITS CASE OF REASONABLE CAUSE. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE SAID PLEA OF ASSESSEE, WE FIRST ADJUDICATE T HE ISSUE WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT LEVYING LATE FILING CHARGES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IS SUSTAINABLE OR NOT. 10. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE BUNCH OF CASE S WITH LEAD ORDER IN THE CA SE OF MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT RURAL HOSPITAL VS. DCIT , CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD IN ITA NO S.651 TO 661/PUN/2018 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.10.2018 AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO PASS CONSEQUENT ORDER WHILE PROCESSING TDS RETURNS FOR THE PERI OD PRIOR TO 01.06.2015 , SINCE THE AMENDMENT WAS BROUGHT INTO EFFECTIVE FROM 01.06.2015 EMPOWERING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CHARGE LATE FILING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF TRIBUNAL ARE AS UNDER: - 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS IS AGAINST LEVY OF LATE FILING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WHILE ISSUING INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, IN THE FIRST BUNCH OF APPEALS. THE SECOND BUN CH OF APPEALS IN THE CASE OF JUNAGADE HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. IS AGAINST ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT REJECTING RECTIFICATION APPLICATION MOVED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST INTIMATION ISSUED LEVYING LATE FILING FEES CHARGED UNDER SECT ION 234E OF THE ACT. THE CASE OF ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY VARIOUS ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL, WHEREIN THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF LATE FILING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, IN THE ABSENCE OF EMPOWERMENT BY THE ACT UPON ASSESSING OFFICER TO LEVY SUCH FEES WHILE ISSUING INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 21.09.2016 WITH LEAD ORDER IN ITA NOS.560/PN/2016 & 561/PN/2016, 1018/PN/2016 TO 1023/PN/2016 IN MAHARASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION VS. DCIT (CPC) - TDS, GHAZIABAD, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013 - 14 AND 2014 - 15 FOR THE RESPECTIVE QUARTERS DELIBERATED UPON THE ISSUE AND HELD AS UNDER: - 34. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 200A(1) OF THE ACT IS PROCEDURA L IN NATURE AND IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS STATEMENTS / RETURNS IN THE PRESENT SET OF APPEALS FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 01.06.2015, WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO CHARGE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE INTIMATION IS SUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT IN ALL THESE APPEALS DOES NOT STAND AND THE DEMAND RAISED BY WAY OF CHARGING THE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IS NOT VALID AND THE SAME IS DELETED. THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS ITA NO S . 1423 & 1489 /P U N/2 0 1 8 SA NOS.104 & 105/PUN/2018 6 BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ADJUSTMENT PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT AND SUCH ADJUSTMENT COULD NOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW. 12. THE SAID PROPOSITION HAS BEEN APPLIED IN THE NEXT BUNCH OF APPEALS WITH LEAD ORDER IN VIDYA VARDHANI EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION IN ITA NOS.1887 TO 1893/PUN/2016 AND OTHERS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013 - 14 AND 2014 - 15 VIDE ORDER DATED 13.01.2017 AND ALSO IN SWAMI VIVEKANAND VIDYALAYA VS. DCIT(CPC) - TDS (SUPRA) AND MEDICAL SUPERINTENDANT RURAL HOSPITAL VS. ACI T (CPC) - TDS IN ITA NOS.2072 & 2073/PUN/2017, ORDER DATED 21.12.2017, WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. 13. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF FATHERAJ SINGHVI VS. UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA) H AD ALSO LAID DOWN SIMILAR PROPOSITION THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 200A OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01.06.2015 HAS PROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE PERIOD OF RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO 01.06.2015. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ARE IN PARAS 21 AND 22, WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 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 FAILU RE 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 ANY PROVISION MADE IN THE STATUTE BOOK, MAY HAVE A RETROACTIVE CHARACTER BUT, WHETHER SUCH PROVISION PROVIDES FOR A MERE REGULATORY MECHANISM OR CONFERS SUBSTANTIVE POWER UPON THE AUTHORITY WOULD ALSO BE A ASPECT WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE SUCH PROVISIONS IS HELD TO BE RETROACTIVE IN NATURE. FURTHER, WHEN ANY PROVISION IS INSERTED FOR LIABILITY TO PAY ANY TAX OR THE FEE BY WAY OF COMPENSATORY IN NATURE OR FEE INDEPENDENTLY SIMULTANEOUSL Y MODE AND THE MANNER OF ITS ENFORCEABILITY IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AND EXAMINED. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT, IF THE MODE AND THE MANNER IS NOT EXPRESSLY PRESCRIBED, THE PROVISIONS MAY ALSO BE VULNERABLE. ALL SUCH ASPECTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERE D BEFORE ONE CONSIDERS REGULATORY MECHANISM OR PROVISION FOR REGULATING THE MODE AND THE MANNER OF RECOVERY AND ITS ENFORCEABILITY AS RETROACTIVE. IF AT THE TIME WHEN THE FEE WAS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 234E, THE PARLIAMENT ALSO PROVIDED FOR ITS UTILITY FOR GIVING PRIVILEGE UNDER SECTION 271H(3) THAT TOO BY EXPRESSLY PUT BAR FOR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272A BY INSERTION OF PROVISO TO SECTION 272A(2), IT CAN BE SAID THAT A PARTICULAR SET UP FOR IMPOSITION AND THE PAYMENT OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E WAS PROVIDED B UT, IT DID NOT PROVIDE FOR MAKING OF DEMAND OF SUCH FEE UNDER SECTION 200A PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 234E. HENCE, CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT - REVENUE T HAT INSERTION OF 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 EXPR ESSLY 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 ITA NO S . 1423 & 1489 /P U N/2 0 1 8 SA NOS.104 & 105/PUN/2018 7 POWER UNDER SECTION 200A BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEAR PRIOR TO 1.6.2015. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, IF ANY DEDUCTOR HAS ALREADY PAID THE FEE AFTER INTIMATION RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 200A, THE AFORESAID VIEW WILL NOT PERMIT THE DEDUCTOR TO REOPEN THE SAID QUESTION UNLESS HE HAS MADE PAYMENT UNDER PROTEST. 14. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THUS HELD THAT WHERE THE IMPUGNED NOTICES GIVEN BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT WERE FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 01.06.2015, THEN S AME WERE ILLEGAL AND INVALID. VIDE PARA 27, IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT WERE FOR COMPUTATION AND INTIMATION FOR PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT AS THEY RELATE FOR THE PERIOD OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE PRIOR TO 01.06.2015 WERE BEING SET ASIDE. 15. IN OTHER WORDS, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA EXPLAINED THE POSITION OF CHARGING OF LATE FILING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT AND THE MECHANISM PROVIDED FOR COMPUTATION OF FEES AND FAILURE FOR PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT WHICH WAS BROUGHT ON STATUTE W.E.F. 01.06.2015. THE SAID AMENDMENT WAS HELD TO BE PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND HENCE, NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT FOR COMPUTATION AND INTIMATION FOR PAYMENT OF LA TE FILING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT RELATING TO THE PERIOD OF TAX DEDUCTION PRIOR TO 01.06.2015 WERE NOT MAINTAINABLE AND WERE SET ASIDE BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. IN VIEW OF SAID PROPOSITION BEING LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (SUPRA), THERE IS NO MERIT IN OBSERVATIONS OF CIT(A) THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHERE THE RETURNS OF TDS WERE FILED FOR EACH OF THE QUARTERS AFTER 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2015 AND EVEN THE ORDER CHARGING LATE FILING FEES WAS PASSED AFTER JUNE, 2015, THEN THE SAME ARE MAINTAINABLE, SINCE THE AMENDMENT HAD COME INTO EFFECT. THE CIT(A) HAS OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT NOTICES UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED FOR COMPUTING AND CHARGING LATE FILING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT FOR THE PERIOD OF TAX DEDUCTED PRIOR TO 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2015. THE SAME CANNOT BE CHARGED BY ISSUE OF NOTICES AFTER 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2015 EVEN WHERE THE RETURNS WERE FILED BELATEDLY BY THE DEDUCTOR AFTER 1 ST JUNE, 2015, WHERE IT CLEARLY RELATED TO THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 01.06.2015. 16 . WE HOLD THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN DIFFERENT BUNCHES OF APPEALS AND SINCE THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 200A OF THE ACT WAS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE P ROCESSING TDS RETURNS / STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 01.06.2015 WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO CHARGE LATE FILING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, EVEN IN CASES WHERE SUCH TDS RETURNS WERE FILED BELATEDLY AFTER JUNE, 2015 AND EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER PROCESSED THE SAID TDS RETURNS AFTER JUNE, 2015. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT INTIMATION ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT IN ALL THE APPEALS DOES NOT STAND AND THE DEMAND RAISED BY CHARGING LATE FILING FEES UNDER SECTION 2 34E OF THE ACT IS NOT VALID AND THE SAME IS DELETED. 11. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL S IS SQUARELY IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT RURAL HOSPITAL VS. DCIT , CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD (SUPRA) AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO PASS INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT CHARGING LATE FILING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT AND HENCE, THE SAME IS TO BE QUASHED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THUS, DIREC TED TO ITA NO S . 1423 & 1489 /P U N/2 0 1 8 SA NOS.104 & 105/PUN/2018 8 DELETE LATE FILING FEES AT 1,98,800/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 AND 1,25,800/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15 . THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 1 2 . IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ALLOWING THE APPEAL S OF ASSESSEE, STAY APPLICA TIONS FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND STAY APPLICATIONS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 2 ND DAY OF NOVEMBER , 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - ( D.KARUNAK ARA RAO ) (SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 2 ND NOVEMBER , 201 8 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 1 , AURANGABAD ; 4. THE CIT - TDS, PUNE ; 5. 6. , , / DR A , ITAT, P UNE ; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE