Pratap Tex-Chem Pvt. Ltd., Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1885/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7283 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL CHAWARE
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Retrospective amendment; Right to appeal
• Section: 10; 154; 2; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM SL. NO. ITA NO(S). NAME OF APPELLANT NAME OF RESPONDENT ASST. YEAR QUA RTER FORM 1-6 1819 TO 1824/PUN/2016 PRO-ARC WELDING & CUTTING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. PLOT NO.312/2, SECTOR NO.7, PCNTDA, BHOSARI, PUNE 411 026 PAN :AAECP1289M DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 QR-2 QR-3 QR-4 QR-2 QR-3 QR-4 24Q 24Q 24Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 7-8 2132 & 2133/PUN/2016 PRO-ARC WELDING & CUTTING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. PLOT NO.312/2, SECTOR NO.7, PCNTDA, BHOSARI, PUNE 411 026 PAN :AAECP1289M DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 2014-15 QR-4 QR-2 26Q 24Q 9-10 840 & 841/PUN/2016 NILESH DHARMAPAL HANSWANI, RISHIKESH, OPP. MODEL COLONY, COLLEGE ROAD, NASHIK-422007 PAN :ABNPH2855C DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2014-15 2015-16 QR-4 QR-2 26Q 26Q 11 1825/PUN/2016 JYOTI BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD., BUILDING A-7, FLAT NO.701, GANGA SATELLITE, WANAVDI, PUNE 411010 PAN :AAACJ4655R DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2014-15 QR-1 26Q 12-15 1833 TO 1836/PUN/2016 DIVYASHAKTI MARKETING PVT. LTD., DIVYA BIG CINEMA, TRIMURTI CHOWK, PURAB PASCHIM PLAZA, CIDCO, NASHIK 422 008 PAN :AAACD3555C DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 QR-2 QR-3 QR-4 QR-1 24Q 24Q 24Q 26Q 16 TO 18 1869 TO 1871/PUN/2016 SHIVPARVATI CONSTRUCTION, PLOT NO.4, R.K. EXTENSION, NEAT S.T. STAND, SANGLI 416416 PAN :AAFFS4011A DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 QR-2 QR-3 QR-4 26Q 26Q 26Q 19 TO 30 1875 TO 1886/PUN/2016 PRATAP TEX-CHEM. PVT. LTD. GAT NO.1163/1, (OLD-1490), MULKHED ROAD, AT POST : GHOTAWADE, TAL. MULSHI, PUNE 412 111 PAN : AACCP7776R DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 QR-2 QR-3 QR-4 QR-2 QR-3 QR-4 QR-1 QR-2 QR-3 QR-1 QR-2 QR-3 24Q 24Q 24Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 24Q 24Q 24Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 31 TO 35 1897 TO 1901/PUN/2016 VAIBHAV MANUFACTURING SOLUTIONS, F4, B2, CHAITRANAGARI, GANANJAY SOCIETY, KOTHRUD, PUNE 411 038 PAN : AAACK7492F DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 QR-2 QR-3 QR-4 QR-2 QR-3 26Q 26Q 26Q 27EQ 27EQ 36 1955/PUN/2016 LAXMI STEEL YARD, GAT NO.726, MADHAVNAGAR ROAD, BUDHGAON 416 304 PAN : AACFL8513F DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 QR-4 26Q 2 SECTION 200A GROUP CASES 37 2100/PUN/2016 KALAPI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ASHELESHA APARTMENT, NEAR SANGAM PRESS, SAUDAMI, KARVE ROAD, PUNE 411002 PAN :AABFK3539K DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 QR-2 26Q 38 TO 39 2102 & 2103/PUN/2016 ARISTA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., 17, CITY TOWER, BOAT CLUB ROAD, PUNE-411001 PAN :AAFCA4579A DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2014-15 2014-15 QR-4 QR-2 24Q 26Q 40 2105/PUN/2016 VIJAY S. ADVANI, ROW HOUSE NO.10 AND 11, PLOT NO.377, KOREGAON PARK, PUNE 411001 PAN : AARPA6999H DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 QR-4 26Q 41 2107/PUN/2016 RAJ DEVELOPERS, 400, MANGALWAR PETH, NARPATGIRI CHOWK, PUNE 411 011 PAN : AAJFR6619K DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 QR-4 26Q 42 2111/PUN/2016 LAKSHMI PROPERTIES, S.NO.24, SHREE, NEAR PADAMJI PAPER MILL, THERGAON, CHINCHWAD, PUNE 411 033 PAN :AADFL7659K DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2014-15 QR-3 26Q 43 2113/PUN/2016 ASHTEKAR JEWELLERS, 596, LAXMI ROAD, SADASHIV PETH, PUNE 411 030 PAN : AACFA0860G DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 QR-3 26Q 44 2115/PUN/2016 MAHENDRA PANNALAL PITALIYA (HUF), 817, RENU PRAKASH SOCIETY, BARISTER GADGIL STREET, SADASHIV PETH, PUNE 411 030 PAN :AAGHP6372Q DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 QR-4 24Q 45 2117/PUN/2016 SHREE RANKA JEWELLERS, 10/1/1, OPP. SIMPLICITY, HANDEWADI ROAD, HANDEWADI HAVELI, PUNE 412 308 PAN : ABXFS6497D DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2014-15 QR-2 26Q 46 2119/PUN/2016 SANDARBHA CONSULTING PVT. LTD., A-1/201, HARIGANGA APTS. OPP. RTO ALANDI ROAD, YERAWADA, PUNE 411 006 PAN :AAQCS4131F DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2014-15 QR-1 26Q 47 TO 48 2121 & 2122/PUN/2016 SHANTI SCOOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, 7/7, WILSON GARDEN, STATION ROAD, PUNE 411001 PAN : AARCS2196M DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 2013-14 QR-4 QR-4 24Q 26Q 49 2123/PUN/2016 PINNACLE NEOSTAR CORPORATION PVT. LTD., 1641, MADHAV HERITAGE, TILAK ROAD, SADASHIV PETH, PUNE 411 030 PAN : AAGCP0714R DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 QR-3 26Q 3 SECTION 200A GROUP CASES ASSESSEE BY : SL.NO.9,10, 12 TO 15, 16 TO 18, NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS) SL.NO. 36 NONE SL.NOS. 1 TO 8, 11 SHRI KISHORE PHADKE SL.NOS. 19 TO 30, 31 TO 35 - SHRI C.H. NANIWADEKAR & SHRI R.R. PETHE SL.NO.37, 38 TO 39, 40, 41,42,43,44,45,46, 47 TO 48 & 49 SHRI SUHAS BORA REVENUE BY : SHRI ANIL CHAWARE / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF CIT(A) RELATING TO DIFFERENT A SSESSMENT YEARS AGAINST RESPECTIVE INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 200A(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ABOVE BUNCH OF APPEALS RELATING TO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLID ATED ORDER AS THE ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEALS WAS SIMILAR. 3. THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT SET OF APP EALS IS AGAINST INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, WHEREIN FEES PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN CHA RGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEGISLATURE HAD INSERTED CLAUSE (C) T O SECTION 200A(1) OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY W.E.F. 01.06.2015 AND THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES BEFORE US WAS THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE SAID AMENDMENT WAS INTRODUCED W.E.F. 01.06.2015 AND THERE WAS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT TH E SAID AMENDMENT WAS CLARIFICATORY OR RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, THEN NO S UCH LATE FEES COULD BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF TDS STA TEMENTS WHICH WERE FILED PRIOR TO 01.06.2015. / DATE OF HEARING : 04.01.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.01.2017. 4 SECTION 200A GROUP CASES 4. FIRST WE TAKE THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF PRO-ARC WELDING & CUTTING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. BEING ITA NO.1819/PUN/2016 AS THE LEAD CASE FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE ON HAND. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, AR E THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACT URING OF WELDING AND CUTTING MACHINES WHICH ARE MAINLY CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FOR THE POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED LATE FILING FEE U/S.234E FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THE TDS STATEMENTS FOR A.Y. 2013-14( QUARTERS 2, 3, & 4). IN OTHER APPEALS ALSO THE RESPECTIVE OFFICERS HAVE LEVIED LATE FILIN G FEES U/S.234E. 5. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN LEVYING THE LATE FILING FEE U/S.234E OF THE I.T. ACT. WHILE DOING SO, HE OBSERV ED THAT SECTION 234E HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO STATUTE W.E.F. 01-07-2012. THE A SSESSEES CASE PERTAINS TO THE PERIOD DURING WHICH SECTION 234E WAS EFFECTIVE. HE HELD THAT ANY DEMAND RAISED U/S.234E IS NOT APPEALABLE BEFORE CIT(A). F OR THE ABOVE PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA VS. UNION OF INDIA REPORTED IN 2015 (54) T AXMANN.COM 200 . EVEN ON MERIT ALSO, HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS EMPOWERED TO CHARGE LATE FILING FEE U/S.234E. ACCORDING TO HIM, SECTIO N 234E OF THE ACT IS TO BE READ ALONGWITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200(3) OF THE A CT. HE OBSERVED THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200(3) ANY PERSON DEDUCTING A NY SUM ON OR AFTER 01-04- 2005 AND AFTER PAYING THE TAX DEDUCTED TO THE CREDI T OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME WILL PREPARE SUCH STATEM ENT FOR SUCH PERIOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. THEREFORE, THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF FEES U/S.234E OF THE ACT IS A PERSON WHO IS MENTIONED U/S.200(3) OF THE ACT. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND DIST INGUISHING THE DECISIONS CITED BEFORE HIM THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN LEVYING THE FEES PAYABLE U/S.234E OF THE ACT FOR LATE FILIN G OF THE TDS RETURNS. IN OTHER 5 SECTION 200A GROUP CASES APPEALS ALSO, THE RESPECTIVE CIT(A) HAVE HELD SIMIL AR VIEW WHILE UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF FEE U/S.234E BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSING OF FICER. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES WE FIND THE ISSUE RELAT ING TO LEVY OF LATE FEES U/S.234E OF THE ACT WHILE ISSUING INTIMATION U/S.20 0A OF THE ACT IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE COORD INATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MAHARASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION VS. DCIT (CPC)-TDS, GHAZIABAD. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 21-09-201 6 IN ITA NOS.560/PN/2016 & 561/PN/2016, 1018/PN/2016 TO 1023/PN/2016 FOR ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 AND 2014-15 HAS THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AND OBSERVED AS UNDER : 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS IS AGAINST LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE, FIRST REFER ENCE IS BEING MADE TO THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. UNDER CHAPTER XVII HEADED COLLECTION AND RECOVERY OF TAXES AND UNDER CLAUSE B, DEDUCTION AT SOURCE, THE STATUTE LAYS DOWN THE DUTY OF THE PAYER OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS TO DE DUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTIONS 192 TO 194LD, 195 TO 196D OF THE ACT. UND ER SECTION 198 OF THE ACT, IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE SHALL F OR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE BE DEEMED TO BE INCOME RECEI VED. UNDER SECTION 199 OF THE ACT, IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT ANY DEDUCTI ON MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER AND PAID TO THE CENTRAL GOVER NMENT SHALL BE TREATED AS PAYMENT OF TAX ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON FROM WHOSE I NCOME THE DEDUCTION WAS MADE. THE SUM REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1A) OF S ECTION 192 OF THE ACT AND PAID TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHALL BE TREATED AS THE TAX PAID ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOSE INCOME SUCH PAYMENT OF T AX HAS BEEN MADE. 17. SECTION 200 OF THE ACT LAYS DOWN THE DUTY OF TH E PERSON DEDUCTING TAX, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 200. (1) ANY PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM IN ACCORDANCE WIT H THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL PAY WITH IN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, THE SUM SO DEDUCTED TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GO VERNMENT OR AS THE BOARD DIRECTS. (2) ANY PERSON BEING AN EMPLOYER, REFERRED TO IN SU B-SECTION (1A) OF SECTION 192 SHALL PAY, WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIM E, THE TAX TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR AS THE BOARD DIRECTS. (2A) IN CASE OF AN OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT, WHERE THE SUM DEDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF THIS CH APTER OR TAX REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION(1A) OF SECTION 192 HAS BEEN PAID TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WITHOUT THE PRODUCTION OF A CHAL LAN, THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER OR THE TREASURY OFFICER OR THE CHE QUE DRAWING AND DISBURSING OFFICER OR ANY OTHER PERSON, BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CREDITING SUCH SUM OR TAX TO THE CR EDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, SHALL DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY, OR TO THE PERSON AUTHORISED B Y SUCH AUTHORITY, A 6 SECTION 200A GROUP CASES STATEMENT IN SUCH FORM, VERIFIED IN SUCH MANNER, SE TTING FORTH SUCH PARTICULARS AND WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE PRESCRIB ED. (3) ANY PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM ON OR AFTER THE 1S T DAY OF APRIL, 2005 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ANY PERSON BEING AN EMPLOYER REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1A) OF SECTION 192 SHALL, AFTER PAYING THE TAX DED UCTED TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, PREPARE SUCH STATEMENTS FOR SUCH PERIOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED AND DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY OR THE PERSON AUTHORISED BY SUCH AUTHORITY SUCH STATEMENT IN SUCH FORM AND VERIFIED IN SUCH MANNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH PARTICULARS AND WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED: PROVIDED THAT THE PERSON MAY ALSO DELIVER TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY A CORRECTION STATEMENT FOR RECTIFICATION OF ANY MISTA KE OR TO ADD, DELETE OR UPDATE THE INFORMATION FURNISHED IN THE STATEMENT D ELIVERED UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION IN SUCH FORM AND VERIFIED IN SUCH MANNE R AS MAY BE SPECIFIED BY THE AUTHORITY. 18. UNDER SECTION 200(1) OF THE ACT, IT IS PROVIDED THAT ANY PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CH APTER SHALL PAY WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, THE SUM SO DEDUCTED TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR AS THE BOARD DIRECTS. UNDER SECTION 200(2) OF THE ACT, ANY PERSON BEING AN EMPLOYER, AS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1A) OF SEC TION 192 OF THE ACT SHALL PAY, WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, THE TAX TO THE CREDIT O F THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR AS THE BOARD DIRECTS. UNDER SUB-SECTION (2A) OF THE A CT, IT IS PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE SUM HAS BEEN DEDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FOREGO ING PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER, BY THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT, THEN DUTY IS UPON THE TREASURY OFFICER OR THE DRAWING & DISBURSING OFFICER OR ANY OTHER PE RSON, TO DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORITI ES, OR TO THE PERSON AUTHORIZED BY SUCH AUTHORITY, STATEMENT IN SUCH FOR M, VERIFIED IN SUCH MANNER, SETTING FORTH SUCH PARTICULARS WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. UNDER SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT, SIMILAR RESPONSIBILITY I S ON ANY PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM ON OR AFTER FIRST DAY OF APRIL, 2005 IN ACCORDA NCE WITH FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER, INCLUDING ANY PERSON AS AN EMPLOYER RE FERRED TO IN SECTION 192(1A) OF THE ACT. THE ONUS IS UPON SUCH PERSON THAT HE S HALL AFTER PAYING THE TAX TO THE CREDIT OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME, PREPARE SUCH STATEMENT FOR SUCH PERIOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED AND DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY OR ANY PERSON SO AU THORIZED, SUCH STATEMENT IN SUCH FORM AND VERIFIED IN SUCH MANNER AND SETTING F ORTH SUCH PARTICULARS AND WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE PROVIDED. THE DUTY IS U PON A PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH VARIOUS PROVISIONS UNDER THE CHAPTER AND ALSO UPON AN EMPLOYER WHO IS MAKING DEDUCTION OUT OF THE PAYMENT S MADE TO THE EMPLOYEES, THEN SUB-SECTION (3) REQUIRES THAT THE DEDUCTOR IS TO PREPARE A STATEMENT FOR SUCH PERIOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, WHICH IS TO BE DE LIVERED TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, IN SUCH FORM AND VERIFIED AND SETTING FO RTH SUCH PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. THE SAID STATEMENT IS TO BE DELIVERED WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. 19. RULE 31A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (IN SHOR T THE RULES) PROVIDES THAT EVERY PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER CHAPTER XVIIB SHALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT, DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED, THE QUARTERLY STATEMENTS TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (SYSTEMS) OR THE PERSONS AUTHORIZED BY T HEM I.E. IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTIONS UNDER VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER XVIIB. THE RULE FURTHER PROVIDES THAT THE STATEMENTS REFERRED TO IN SUB-RUL E (1) ARE TO BE DELIVERED QUARTERLY AND THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF DUE DATE OF FILING THE SAID STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTOR BEING AN OFFICE OF THE GOVERNME NT AND THE DEDUCTOR BEING OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT, ARE PROVIDED. THE SUB-RULE (3) OF RULE 31A OF THE RULES FURTHER PROVIDES THAT THE STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SUB-RULE (1) MAY BE FURNISHED IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MANNERS I.E. BY WAY OF FURNISH ING THE STATEMENT IN PAPER FORM OR FURNISHING THE STATEMENT ELECTRONICALLY UND ER DIGITAL SIGNATURE OR AFTER 7 SECTION 200A GROUP CASES VERIFICATION. INITIALLY, SUCH STATEMENT HAD TO BE FURNISHED IN PAPER FORM AND LATER BY WAY OF AMENDMENT, THE PROCEDURE FOR FURNISHING T HE STATEMENT ELECTRONICALLY WAS PROVIDED. ONCE THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN SO SUBMI TTED BY THE DEDUCTOR OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, THEN PROCESSING OF STATEMEN T IS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. THE SAID SECTION WAS INSE RTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009 W.E.F. 01.04.2010. THE SAID SECTION 200A OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER:- 200A. (1) WHERE A STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE O R A CORRECTION STATEMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY A PERSON DEDUCTING ANY S UM (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION AS DEDUCTOR) UNDER SECTION 200, SUC H STATEMENT SHALL BE PROCESSED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER, NAMELY: (A) THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL B E COMPUTED AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS, NAMELY: (I) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE STATEMENT; OR (II) AN INCORRECT CLAIM, APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMAT ION IN THE STATEMENT; (B) THE INTEREST, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STATEMENT; (C) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DU E TO, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF AMOUNT COMP UTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 20 0 AND SECTION 201, AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY W AY OF TAX OR INTEREST; (D) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED A ND SENT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABL E BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UNDER CLAUSE (C); AND (E) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PU RSUANCE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (C) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR : PROVIDED THAT NO INTIMATION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE SENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YE AR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED. EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, 'AN INCORRECT CLAIM APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMENT' SHA LL MEAN A CLAIM, ON THE BASIS OF AN ENTRY, IN THE STATEMENT (I) OF AN ITEM, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANOTHER ENTRY OF THE SAME OR SOME OTHER ITEM IN SUCH STATEMENT; (II) IN RESPECT OF RATE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOUR CE, WHERE SUCH RATE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF TH IS ACT. (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS UN DER SUB-SECTION (1), THE BOARD MAY MAKE A SCHEME FOR CENTRALISED PROCESS ING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO EXPEDITIOUSLY DETERMIN E THE TAX PAYABLE BY, OR THE REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR AS REQUIRED UNDE R THE SAID SUB- SECTION. 20. SECTION 200A OF THE ACT LAYS DOWN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ARE TO BE PROCESSED FOR I SSUING THE INTIMATION. FIRST OF ALL, THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THE CHAPTER ARE TO B E COMPUTED AND INTEREST, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH SUMS DE DUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STATEMENTS AS PER CLAUSE (A) AND (B) UNDER SECT ION 200A(1) OF THE ACT. CLAUSES (C) TO (F) REPRODUCED ABOVE WERE SUBSTITUTE D FOR CLAUSES (C) TO (E) BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.2015. PRIOR TO THE SUBSTITUTION, CLAUSES (C) TO (E) READ AS UNDER:- (C) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DU E TO, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF AMOUNT COMP UTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 20 0 AND SECTION 201, AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY WAY O F TAX OR INTEREST; 8 SECTION 200A GROUP CASES (D) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED AN D SENT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABL E BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UNDER CLAUSE (C); AND (E) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PUR SUANCE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (C) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR. 21. AS PER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED CLAUSE (C) W.E.F. 01.0 6.2015, THE FEES, IF ANY, IS TO BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, UNDER THE EARLIER CLAUSE (C), THERE WAS NO SUCH PROVISION. 22. SECTION 234E(1) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHERE A PERSON FAILS TO DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED, A STATEMENT WITHIN TIME P RESCRIBED IN SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT OR THE PROVISO TO SECTION 206C(3) OF THE AC T, HE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY, BY WAY OF FEES, SUM OF RS.200/- FOR EVERY DAY DURING W HICH THE FAILURE CONTINUES. THE SAID PROVISIONS WERE INSERTED BY THE FINANCE AC T, 2012 W.E.F. 01.07.2012. UNDER SUB-SECTION (2), IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF FEES REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTIBLE OR COLLECTABLE, AS THE CASE MAY BE. SUB-SECTION (3) FURTHER LAYS DOWN THAT THE AMOUNT OF FEES REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL BE PAID BEFORE DELIVERING OR CAUSING TO BE DELIVERED A STATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-SECTIO N 200(3) OF THE ACT OR THE PROVISO TO SECTION 206C(3) OF THE ACT. THE PROVISI ONS OF SAID SECTION HAVE BEEN MADE APPLICABLE TO A STATEMENT TO BE DELIVERED OR C AUSE TO BE DELIVERED ON OR AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF JULY, 2012. 23. READING THE ABOVE SAID PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, I T TRANSPIRES THAT WHERE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY A DEDUCTOR OUT OF TH E ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTEE, THEN THE ONUS IS UPON THE DEDUCTOR UNDER SECTION 200 OF THE ACT TO PREPARE A STATEMENT IN SUCH FORM AND VERIFIED IN SUCH MANNER WHICH IS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT IN WHICH THE PARTICULARS OF TAX DEDUCTION A T SOURCE ARE TO BE PROVIDED AND THE SAID STATEMENT IS TO BE DELIVERED OR CAUSE TO B E DELIVERED WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. RULE 31A OF THE RULES PROVID ED THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE FURNISHING OF STATEMENT FOR TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE ON QUARTERLY BASIS. SECTION 234E OF THE ACT LEVIES FEES FOR DEFAULT IN FURNISHI NG THE STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. SUCH FEES IS TO BE PAID BEFORE DELIVERING OR CAUSING TO BE DELIVERED A STATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 20 0(3) OF THE ACT OR PROVISO TO SECTION 206C(3) OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, IN CAS E THE ASSESSEE HAS DEFAULTED IN NOT DELIVERING THE STATEMENT OR CAUSING TO DELIV ER THE STATEMENT WITHIN TIME PRESCRIBED, THEN HE IS LIABLE TO PAY THE FEES WHICH IS SO PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT AND SUCH FEES SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF TAX DE DUCTIBLE OR COLLECTABLE AT SOURCE BUT THE SAME HAS TO BE PAID ALONG WITH STATE MENT WHICH IS TO BE DELIVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT. THOUGH THE STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE HAS TO BE FURNI SHED BY THE DEDUCTOR, NO DOUBT, UNDER SECTION 200 OF THE ACT, BUT THE SAME H AS TO BE PROCESSED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 00A OF THE ACT. IN CASE THERE IS ANY VARIATION IN THE TAX, SUM DEDUCTIBLE UNDER T HE CHAPTER AND / OR THEIR PAYMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS IN THIS REGARD AND ALSO REJECT INCORRECT CLAIM MADE BY THE DEDUCTOR WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE INFORMATION IN THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEDUCTOR. FURTHER, THE INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY IS AUTHORIZED TO CHARGE INTEREST, IF ANY, AND THE SAME SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SUMS DEDUCTIBLE IN ADDITIO N TO THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, WHICH IS TO BE PAID TO THE ACCO UNT OF TREASURY BY THE DEDUCTOR. IN CASE OF ANY DEFAULT, INTEREST IS TO B E CHARGED AGAINST SUCH DEDUCTOR AND THE SAME IS TO BE COMPUTED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A(1)(B) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IN ADDITION TO BOTH THESE AMOUNTS, C LAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A OF THE ACT PROVIDES FEES TO BE LEVIED WHICH SHALL BE C OMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE SAI D PROVISION TO CHARGE FEES BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR E ARLIER PROVISIONS BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.2015. PRIOR TO THE SAID SUBSTITUTION THOUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT FOR PAYMENT O F FEES FOR DEFAULT IN FURNISHING THE STATEMENT WERE INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 201 2 W.E.F. 01.07.2012, THE 9 SECTION 200A GROUP CASES PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CHAR GE THE SAID FEES, WHILE PROCESSING THE QUARTERLY STATEMENTS / RETURNS UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. 24. NOW, LOOKING AT VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE ADJUDICATED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, WHEREIN ADMITT EDLY, TDS RETURNS WHICH WERE DEEMED TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FILED AFTER DELAY AND THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH PROCESSING THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT COULD CHARGE LATE FEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AT BEST COULD CHARGE THE DIFFERENCE IN TAX DEDUCTED AND NOT PAID IN TREASURY FROM THE DEDUCTOR AND / OR ANY INTEREST PAYABLE ON SUCH DEDU CTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. HOWEVER, TILL SUBSTITUTION OF CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A(1) OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.2015, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO CHARGE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE CASE OF REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF DEDUCTOR WH ILE FURNISHING THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT TO DEPOSIT THE FEES REFERRED TO IN SECTION 234E(1) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT-DR STRESSED THAT FEES REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) HAD TO BE PAID WHILE DELIVERING OR CAUSING TO DELIV ER THE STATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT OR THE PROVISO TO SECTION 206C(3) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, VARIOUS REGULATIONS AND THE STAT UTORY PROVISIONS IN THIS REGARD POINT OUT THAT UNDOUBTEDLY, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF T HE DEDUCTOR WAS TO DEPOSIT THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IN TIME AND IF NOT SO, THEN WITH INTEREST AND CONSEQUENTLY, WHERE THE TAX WAS NOT PAID IN TIME AND INTEREST WAS NOT PAID IN TIME AND THEN, WHERE THE STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY WITHIN STIPULATED TIME, THE AS SESSEE WAS LIABLE TO LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN CA SE ANY DEFAULT OCCURS DUE TO THE NON-PAYMENT OF FEES BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REG ARD, THEN THE PROVISIONS WHICH HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IS SECTION 200A(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE POWER TO CHARGE / COLLECT FEES AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS VESTED WITH THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT ONLY ON SUBSTITUTION OF EARLIER CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.2015. ONCE ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT HAS BEEN MADE APPLICABLE F ROM A RESPECTIVE DATE, THEN THE REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE IS TO APPLY THE SAID PROVISIONS FROM THE SAID DATE. 25. IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY HAS BEEN VESTED WITH THE POWER TO CHARGE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT ONLY WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF FEES BY THE SUB STITUTION MADE BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.2015. ONCE THE POWER HAS BEEN GIVEN, UNDER WHICH ANY LEVY HAS TO BE IMPOSED UPON TAX PAYER, TH EN SUCH POWER COMES INTO EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF SUBSTITUTION AND CANNOT BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY. THE SAID EXERCISE OF POWER HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE STA TUTE TO BE FROM 01.06.2015 AND HENCE, IS TO BE APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY. THERE I S NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF REVENUE THAT EVEN WITHOUT INSERTION OF CLAUSE (C) U NDER SECTION 200A(1) OF THE ACT, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PAY FEES , IN CASE THERE IS DEFAULT IN FURNISHING THE STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. ADMITTEDLY, THE ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PREPARE STATEMENTS AND DELIVER THE SAME WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME BEFORE THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, BU T THE POWER TO COLLECT THE FEES BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY VESTED IN SUCH AUTHORIT Y ONLY BY WAY OF SUBSTITUTION OF CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A(1) OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.2015. PRIOR TO SAID SUBSTATION, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD NO AUTHORITY TO CHARGE THE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WHILE ISSUING INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. BEFORE EXERCISING THE AUT HORITY OF CHARGING ANY SUM FROM ANY DEDUCTOR OR THE ASSESSEE, THE PRESCRIBED A UTHORITY SHOULD HAVE NECESSARY POWER VESTED IN IT AND BEFORE VESTING OF SUCH POWER, NO ORDER CAN BE PASSED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IN CHARGING OF S UCH FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, WHILE EXERCISING JURISDICTION UNDER SEC TION 200A OF THE ACT. THUS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ENABLING PROVISIONS, UNDER WHICH THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IS EMPOWERED TO CHARGE THE FEES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURNS FILED BY THE DEDUCTOR IN RESPECT OF TAX DED UCTED AT SOURCE CAN RAISE THE DEMAND ON ACCOUNT OF TAXES, IF ANY, NOT DEPOSITED A ND CHARGE INTEREST. HOWEVER, PRIOR TO 01.06.2015, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO 10 SECTION 200A GROUP CASES CHARGE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WHILE PRO CESSING TDS RETURNS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ENABLING PROVISIONS, LEVY OF FEES COULD NOT BE EFFECTED IN THE COURSE OF INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT PRIOR TO 01.06.2015. 26. THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN SIBIA HEALTHC ARE (P) LTD. VS. DCIT (2015) 121 DTR 81 (ASR) (TRIB) HAD HELD THAT THE AD JUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS INDEED BEYON D THE SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. SUCH A LEVY COULD NOT BE EFFECTED IN THE COURSE OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTI ON 200A OF THE ACT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER PROVISIONS ENABLING THE DEMAND IN RESPECT OF THIS LEVY HAVING BEEN POINTED OUT, NO SUCH LEVY COULD BE EFFE CTED. THE SAID PROPOSITION HAS BEEN APPLIED IN VARIOUS DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DECISIONS OF CHENNAI BENC H OF TRIBUNAL IN G. INDIRANI VS. DCIT (SUPRA), AHMEDABAD BENCH OF TRIBU NAL IN M/S. GLOBE ECOLOGISTICS LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NOS.2689-2691/AHD /2015, ITA NO.2692/AHD/2015, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014- 15, ITA NO.2693/AHD/2015, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14 AND ITA NOS.2694- 2695/AHD/2014, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 26.11.2015 AND CHANDIGARH BENCH OF TRIBUNAL I N M/S. KHANNA WATCHES LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NOS.731 TO 735/CHD/2015, RELAT ING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 & 2013-14, ORDER DATED 29.10.2015. 27. WHILE DECIDING THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS, TH E REVENUE HAD PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA VS. UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA) WHEREIN, THE CO NSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS CHALLENGED. THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT NOTED THE FACT THAT WHERE THE DEDUCTOR WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH PERIODIC AL QUARTERLY STATEMENTS CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF DEDUCTION OF TAX MADE DUR ING THE QUARTER, BY THE PRESCRIBED DUE DATE AND THE DELAY IN FURNISHING SUC H TDS RETURNS WOULD HAVE CASCADING EFFECT. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT THAT UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, WHERE THERE IS AN OBLIGATION ON THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT TO PROCESS THE INCOME-TAX RETURNS WITHIN SPECIFIED PERIOD FROM THE DATE OF FILING, THE RETURNS COULD NOT BE ACCURATELY PROCESSED OF SU CH PERSON ON WHOSE BEHALF TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED I.E. DEDUCTEE, UNTIL INFORMAT ION OF SUCH DEDUCTIONS IS FURNISHED BY THE DEDUCTOR WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIM E. SINCE THE SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF DEDUCTORS WERE NOT FILING THEIR TDS RETUR NS / STATEMENTS WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME FRAME, THEN IT LEAD TO AN ADDITIONA L WORK BURDEN UPON THE DEPARTMENT DUE TO THE FAULT OF THE DEDUCTOR AND IN THIS LIGHT AND TO COMPENSATE FOR ADDITIONAL WORK BURDEN FORCED UPON THE DEPARTME NT, FEES WAS SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT LOOKING AT THIS FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS NOT PUNITIVE IN NATURE BUT A FEE WHICH WAS A FIXED CHARGE FOR THE EXTRA SE RVICE WHICH THE DEPARTMENT HAD TO PROVIDE DUE TO THE LATE FILING OF TDS STATEM ENTS. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT LATE FILING OF TDS RETU RNS / STATEMENTS WAS REGULARIZED BY PAYMENT OF FEES AS SET OUT IN SECTIO N 234E OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT WERE THUS, THAT THE FEES SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS NOT IN THE GUISE OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED ON THE DEDUCTOR. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF TH E ACT WERE HELD TO BE NOT ONEROUS ON THE GROUND THAT SECTION DOES NOT EMPOWER THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN LATE FILING THE INCOME TAX RET URNS OR THAT NO APPEAL IS PROVIDED FROM ARBITRARY ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WA S NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT BUT WAS CREATURE OF STATUTE AND IF THE LEGISLATURE DEEMS FI T NOT TO PROVIDE REMEDY OF APPEAL, SO BE IT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FURTHER H ELD THAT A PERSON CAN ALWAYS APPROACH THE COURT IN EXTRAORDINARY EQUITABLE JURIS DICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION AS THE CASE MAY BE. THE HONBL E HIGH COURT THEREFORE, OBSERVED THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE NO REMEDY OF APPEAL WA S PROVIDED FOR THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, THE SAME CAN NOT BE SAID TO BE ONEROUS AND SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS HELD TO BE CONSTITU TIONALLY VALID. THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23 4E OF THE ACT HAS ALSO BEEN 11 SECTION 200A GROUP CASES UPHELD BY THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN M/S. DUNDLOD SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS (SUPRA). 28. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID RATIO LAID DOWN BY TH E HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE CASE OF THE LEARNED CIT-DR BEFORE US WAS THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT SET OF APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS LAID DOWN THAT NO APPEAL IS PROVIDED FROM AN ORDER PASSE D UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT AND THE SAME MERITS TO BE DISMISSED AT THE OUTS ET. IN THIS REGARD, HE HAS RAISED TWO ISSUES THAT (A) THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND ALSO (B) THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT EMPOWERED TO CHARGE FEES UNDER SECTI ON 234E OF THE ACT BEFORE INSERTION OF CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A(1) OF THE A CT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.2015. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE MEMORANDU M TO THE FINANCE BILL, 2015 WHILE INTRODUCING THE SAID CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 20 0A(1) OF THE ACT. THE FINANCE BILL TOOK NOTE OF THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVIIB, UNDER WHICH THE PERSON DEDUCTING TAX I.E. DEDUCTOR WAS REQUIRED TO FILE QU ARTERLY TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE STATEMENT CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF DEDUCTION OF TA X MADE DURING THE QUARTER BY THE PRESCRIBED DUE DATES. SIMILAR RESPONSIBILITY I S ON A PERSON REQUIRED TO COLLECT TAX OF CERTAIN SPECIFIED RECEIPTS UNDER SEC TION 206C OF THE ACT. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE DETERRENCE AGAINST THE DELAY I N FURNISHING TDS / TCS STATEMENTS, THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 INSERTED SECTION 234E OF THE ACT TO PROVIDE FOR LEVY OF FEES ON LATE FURNISHING OF TDS / TCS ST ATEMENTS. THE MEMO FURTHER TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009 INSERTED SECTION 200A IN THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDED FOR FURNISHING OF TDS STATE MENTS FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT PAYABLE OR REFUNDABLE TO THE DEDUCTOR. IT F URTHER TOOK NOTE THAT HOWEVER, AS SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS INSERTED AFTER THE I NSERTION OF SECTION 200A IN THE ACT, THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A OF THE ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR DETERMINATION OF FEES PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF PROCESSING OF TDS STATEMENTS. IT WAS THUS, PROPOSE D TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A OF THE ACT SO AS TO ENABLE THE COMP UTATION OF FEES PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF PROCES SING OF TDS STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. THE MEMO EXPLAINING THE FINANCE BILL, 2015 VERY CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT CURRENTLY THERE DOES NOT EX IST ANY PROVISION IN THE ACT TO ENABLE THE PROCESSING OF TCS RETURNS AND HENCE, A P ROPOSAL WAS MADE TO INSERT A PROVISION IN THIS REGARD AND ALSO THE POST PROVIS ION SHALL INCORPORATE THE MECHANISM FOR COMPUTATION OF FEES PAYABLE UNDER SEC TION 234E OF THE ACT. THE FINANCE BILL FURTHER REFERS TO THE EXISTING PROVISI ONS OF THE ACT I.E. AFTER PROCESSING OF TDS STATEMENT, INTIMATION IS GENERATE D SPECIFYING THE AMOUNT PAYABLE OR REFUNDABLE. THIS INTIMATION GENERATED A FTER PROCESSING OF TDS STATEMENT IS (I) SUBJECT TO RECTIFICATION UNDER SEC TION 154 OF THE ACT; (II) APPEALABLE UNDER SECTION 246A OF THE ACT; AND (III) DEEMED AS NOTICE OF PAYMENT UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT. THE FINANCE BILL FUR THER PROVIDED THAT INTIMATION GENERATED AFTER THE PROPOSED PROCESSING OF TCS STAT EMENT SHALL BE AT PAR WITH THE INTIMATION GENERATED AFTER PROCESSING OF TDS ST ATEMENT AND ALSO PROVIDED THAT FAILURE TO PAY TAX SPECIFIED IN THE INTIMATION SHALL ATTRACT LEVY OF INTEREST AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 220(2) OF THE ACT. FURTH ER, AMENDMENTS WERE ALSO MADE IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEME OF PAYMENT OF TDS / T CS BY THE GOVERNMENT, DEDUCTOR / COLLECTOR WHICH ARE NOT RELEVANT FOR DEC IDING THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT BEING REFERRED T O. THE FINANCE BILL FURTHER PROVIDED THAT THE AMENDMENT WOULD TAKE EFFECT FROM 01.06.2015. 29. THE PERUSAL OF MEMO EXPLAINING THE PROVISION RE LATING TO INSERTION OF CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A OF THE ACT CLARIFIES THE INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE IN INSERTING THE SAID PROVISION. THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 234E OF THE ACT WERE INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012, UNDER WHICH THE PROVISION WAS MADE FOR LEVY OF FEES FOR LATE FURNISHING TDS / TCS STATEMENTS. BEFORE INSERTION OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009 HAD I NSERTED SECTION 200A IN THE ACT, UNDER THE SAID SECTION, MECHANISM WAS PROVIDED FOR PROCESSING OF TDS STATEMENTS FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT PAYABLE OR RE FUNDABLE TO THE DEDUCTOR, UNDER WHICH THE PROVISION WAS ALSO MADE FOR CHARGIN G OF INTEREST. HOWEVER, 12 SECTION 200A GROUP CASES SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WER E NOT ON STATUTE WHEN THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009 WAS PASSED, NO PROVISION W AS MADE FOR DETERMINING THE FEES PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT AT T HE TIME OF PROCESSING THE TDS STATEMENTS. SO, WHEN SECTION 234E OF THE ACT W AS INTRODUCED, IT PROVIDED THAT THE PERSON WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING THE TDS RETURNS / STATEMENTS WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD AND IN DEFAULT, FEES WOULD BE CHARGED ON SUCH PERSON. THE SAID SECTION ITSELF PROVIDED THAT FEES SHALL NO T EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE OR COLLECTED AT SOURCE. IT WAS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING THE STATEMENTS SH ALL PAY THE SAID AMOUNT WHILE FURNISHING THE STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 200(3) OF T HE ACT. HOWEVER, POWER ENABLING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CHARGE / LEVY THE FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS RETURNS / STATEMENTS F ILED BY A PERSON DID NOT EXIST WHEN SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS INSERTED BY THE FI NANCE ACT, 2012. THE POWER TO CHARGE FEES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 234E OF THE ACT WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS STATEMENTS, WAS DWELLED UPON BY THE LEGISLATURE BY WAY OF INSERTION OF CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A(1) OF THE A CT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.2015. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCESSED THE TDS STATEMENTS FILED BY THE DEDUCTOR, WHICH ADMITTEDLY, WERE FILED BELATEDLY BUT BEFORE INSERTION OF CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A(1) OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01.06.2015, THEN IN SUCH CASES, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS NOT EMPOWERED TO CHARGE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS RETURNS FILED BY THE DEDUCTOR. 30. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN RASHMIKANT KUN DALIA VS. UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA) HAS UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDIT Y OF SAID SECTION INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.2015 BUT WAS NOT ABREAST OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SAID SECTION 234E OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WHILE PROCESSING TDS STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEDUCTOR PRIOR TO 01.06. 2015. IN SUCH SCENARIO, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF LEARNED CIT-DR THAT TH E HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA VS. UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA) H AS LAID DOWN THE PROPOSITION THAT FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IS CHARGEAB LE IN THE CASE OF PRESENT SET OF APPEALS, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT PRIOR TO 01.06.2015. 31. ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE AMEN DMENT BROUGHT IN BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.2015 BY WAY OF INSER TION OF CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A(1) OF THE ACT IS CLARIFICATORY OR IS PROSPECTI VE IN NATURE AND IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PENDING ASSESSMENTS. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WERE INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012, UNDER W HICH THE LIABILITY WAS IMPOSED UPON THE DEDUCTOR IN SUCH CASES WHERE TDS S TATEMENTS / RETURNS WERE FILED BELATEDLY TO PAY THE FEES AS PER SAID SECTION . HOWEVER, IN CASES, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEPOSIT THE SAID FEES, THEN IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COLLECT THE SAID FEES CHARGEAB LE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE LEGISLATURE TO PROVID E MECHANISM FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CHARGE AND COLLECT SUCH FEES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ENABLING PROVISIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS STATEMENTS, EVEN IF THE SAID STATEMENTS ARE BELATED, IS NOT EMPOWERED T O CHARGE THE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE AMENDMENT WAS BROUGHT IN BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.2015 AND SUCH AN AMENDMENT WHERE EMPOWERMENT IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LEVY OR CHARGE THE FEES CANNOT BE SAID TO BE CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND HENCE, APPLICABLE FOR P ENDING ASSESSMENTS. 32. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. VATIKA TOW NSHIP PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS EXPLAINED THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE CONCERNING RETR OSPECTIVITY AND HAVE HELD THAT OF THE VARIOUS RULES GUIDING HOW A LEGISLATION HAS TO BE INTERPRETED, ONE ESTABLISHED RULE IS THAT UNLESS CONTRARY INTENTION APPEARS, A LEGISLATION IS PRESUMED NOT TO BE INTENDED TO HAVE A RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION. IDEA BEHIND THE RULE IS THAT CURRENT LAW SHOULD GOVERN CURRENT ACTI VITIES. THE MEMO EXPLAINING THE FINANCE BILL, 2015 VERY CLEARLY ALSO RECOGNIZES THAT AND REFERS TO THE CURRENT PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3) TO SECTION 200 OF THE ACT, UNDER WHICH THE DEDUCTOR IS TO FURNISH TDS STATEMENTS. HOWEVER, AS SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS INSERTED AFTER INSERTION OF SECTION 200A IN THE ACT, THE EXI STING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A 13 SECTION 200A GROUP CASES OF THE ACT DID NOT PROVIDE FOR DETERMINATION OF FEE S PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF PROCESSING OF TDS STATEME NTS. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS THUS, PROPOSED TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 00A OF THE ACT SO AS TO ENABLE THE COMPUTATION OF FEES PAYABLE UNDER SECTIO N 234E OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF PROCESSING OF TDS STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO CHARGE FEES PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IN THE INTIMATION ISSUED AF TER INSERTION OF CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A(1) OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01.06.2015. THE LEGISLATURE ITSELF RECOGNIZED THAT UNDER THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A OF THE ACT I.E. PRIOR TO 01.06.2015, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF PR OCESSING THE TDS STATEMENTS DID NOT HAVE POWER TO CHARGE FEES UNDER SECTION 234 E OF THE ACT AND IN ORDER TO COVER UP THAT, THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY WAY OF INS ERTION OF CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. IN SUCH SCENARIO, IT CANN OT BE SAID THAT INSERTION MADE BY SECTION 200A(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS RETROSPECTIVE I N NATURE, WHERE THE LEGISLATURE WAS AWARE THAT THE FEES COULD BE CHARGED UNDER SECT ION 234E OF THE ACT AS PER FINANCE ACT, 2012 AND ALSO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 200A OF THE ACT WERE INSERTED BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009, UNDER WHICH T HE MACHINERY WAS PROVIDED FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROCESS THE TDS STATEM ENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE INSERTION CATEGORICALLY BEING MADE W.E.F. 01.06 .2015 LAYS DOWN THAT THE SAID AMENDMENT IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND CANNOT BE AP PLIED TO PROCESSING OF TDS RETURNS / STATEMENTS PRIOR TO 01.06.2015. 33. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN RECENT JUDGMENT DATED 2 6.08.2016, THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NOS.2663-2674/2 015(T-IT) & ORS IN SRI FATHERAJ SINGHVI & ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS HAS QUASHED THE INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT LEVYING THE FE ES FOR DELAYED FILING THE TDS STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE HON BLE HIGH COURT NOTES THAT THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 HAD MADE AMENDMENTS TO SECTIO N 200A OF THE ACT ENABLING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS WHILE LEVYING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS APPLICABLE W.E.F. 01.06 .2015 AND HAS HELD THAT IT HAS PROSPECTIVE EFFECT. ACCORDINGLY, THE HONBLE H IGH COURT HELD THAT INTIMATION RAISING DEMAND PRIOR TO 01.06.2015 UNDER SECTION 20 0A OF THE ACT LEVYING SECTION 234E OF THE ACT LATE FEES IS NOT VALID. H OWEVER, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT KEPT OPEN THE ISSUE ON CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF S ECTION 234E OF THE ACT. WE HAVE ALREADY REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE BO MBAY HIGH COURT IN RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA VS. UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA) IN T HIS REGARD, WHEREIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT HAS BEEN UPHELD. 34. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECT ION 200A(1) OF THE ACT IS PROCEDURAL IN NATURE AND IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSES SING 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 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT IN ALL THESE APPEALS DOES NOT STAND AND THE DEM AND 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 BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ADJUSTMENT PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE AC T AND SUCH ADJUSTMENT COULD NOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW. 35. BEFORE PARTING WE MAY REFER TO RELIANCE PLACED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT- DR ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY CHENNAI BENCH OF TRIBU NAL IN G. INDIRANI VS. DCIT (SUPRA) ON ANOTHER ASPECT WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT BEFORE 01.06.2015, WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD AUTHORITY TO PASS A SEPAR ATE ORDER UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT LEVYING FEES FOR DELAY IN FILING THE TDS STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT; THE TRIBUNAL HELD YES THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAD SUCH POWER AND AFTER 01.06.2015, THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS WITHIN HIS LIMIT TO LEVY FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT EVEN WHILE PROCE SSING THE TDS STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE PRES ENT SET OF FACTS, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CHARGED FEES UNDER SECTION 23 4E OF THE ACT WHILE PROCESSING THE STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT BEFORE 01.06.2015, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE RELIANCE PLACED UPON BY TH E LEARNED CIT-DR ON THE SAID 14 SECTION 200A GROUP CASES PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE CHENNAI BENCH OF TRIBU NAL AND WE DISMISS THE SAME. 36. ANOTHER RELIANCE PLACED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT -DR WAS IN RESPECT OF AMENDMENT BEING RETROSPECTIVE OR PROSPECTIVE AND RE LIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. NARESH KUMAR (SUPRA). HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN THE PARAS HEREI NABOVE, WHERE POWER IS BEING ENSHRINED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LEVY OR CHARGE WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS RETURNS W.E.F. 01.06.2015, SUCH PROVISION C ANNOT HAVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AS IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE CASE OF TA X PAYER. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT WAS CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION OF AMEND MENT TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010, UNDER WHICH CERTA IN RELAXATIONS WERE GIVEN TO THE APPLICATION OF SAID SECTION AND IT WAS HELD THA T THE SAME APPLIES RETROSPECTIVELY TO EARLIER YEARS. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT SET OF APPEALS, THE ISSUE IS AGAINST THE PROVISION UNDER WHICH A NEW EN ABLING POWER IS BEING GIVEN TO CHARGE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WHILE PROCESSING TDS RETURNS / STATEMENTS AND SUCH POWER IS TO BE APPLIED PROSPECT IVELY. IN ANY CASE, THE PARLIAMENT ITSELF HAS RECOGNIZED ITS OPERATION TO B E PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE WHILE INTRODUCING CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A(1) OF THE AC T AND HENCE, CANNOT BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY. SIMILARLY, RELIANCE PLACE D UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT-DR ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN GOVINDDAS VS. ITO (SUPRA) IS MISPLACED BECAUSE OF THE DISTINGUISHABLE FACTS AND ISSUES. 8. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENT ICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN BUNCH OF APPEALS WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SINCE THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 200A(1) OF THE ACT IS PROCEDURAL IN NATU RE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS STATEMENTS / RETUR NS 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. ACCORDINGLY, INTIMA TION ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT IN ALL THE AP PEALS DOES NOT STAND AND THE DEMAND RAISED BY CHARGING THE FEES UNDER SECTION 23 4E OF THE ACT IS NOT VALID AND THE SAME IS DELETED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 9. IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE OTHER ASSESSEES. FOLLOWING OUR REASONINGS GIVEN IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO CHARGE FEES U/S.234E O F THE ACT WHILE ISSUING INTIMATION U/S.200A OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE O RDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES A RE ALLOWED. 15 SECTION 200A GROUP CASES 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RES PECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13-01-2017. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (R.K. PANDA) ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 13 TH JANUARY, 2017 SATISH % &'( ) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) - 1 0 , PUNE / CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. 5. 6. CIT-10, PUNE / CONCERNED CIT ##$, $, / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; * / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , //TRUE COPY// /0 /ASSISTANT REGISTRAR $ , / ITAT, PUNE