Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7426 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
13-01-2017
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
05-01-2017
Assessment Year
misc
Appeal Filed On
30-09-2016
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 TO 10 2241 TO 2250/PUN/2016 M/S. MMF SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., ROW HOUSE NO.1 & 2, SURYA RESIDENCY, 66/7, BANER, PUNE 411045 PAN :AAICS2847N 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 QR-2 QR-3 QR-4 QR-2 QR-3 QR-4 QR-2 QR-3 QR-2 QR-3 24Q 24Q 24Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 24Q 24Q 26Q 26Q 11 2011/PUN/2016 GIRISH LAXMAN MANE (HUF), SHOP NO.5/6, E-WARD, 4 TH LANE, RAJARAMPURI, KOLHAPUR PAN : AAEHG8620E DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 QR-3 26Q 12 TO 14 2017 TO 2019/PUN/2016 M/S. CHINTAMANI GARMENTS, 1783, E-WARD, 2 ND LANE, RAJARAMPURI, KOLHAPUR 416 008 PAN :AACFC8987G DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 QR-2 QR-3 QR-4 26Q 26Q 26Q 15 2028/PUN/2016 SANJAY RUPAMAL POPTANI, SHOP NO.4, MAHALAXMI PLAZA, GANDHINAGAR, KOLHAPUR 416119 PAN : AFVPP6187P DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 QR-4 26Q 16 TO 17 2030 & 2031/PUN/2016 MOTILAL CHORDIA TOBACCO PVT. LTD., 175, MAYUR, 7 TH LANE, M.G. ROAD, JAYSINGPUR-416101 PAN : AABCM9482A DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 2014-15 QR-4 QR-4 26Q 26Q 18 TO 21 2033 TO 2036/PUN/2016 AVINASH KRISHNAJI PORE, C/O. PORES AUTO IDRAPAST, MADHAVNAGAR ROAD, SANGLI 416 416 PAN : AAUPP6419N DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 QR-2 QR-3 QR-1 QR-2 26Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 22 2040/PUN/2016 M/S. SHREE MAHALSA & COMPANY, 3, MALINI GARDEN, CANADA CORNER, OPP. BSNL OFFICE, NASHIK 422 005 PAN : ACIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2015-16 QR-2 24Q 23 2042/PUN/2016 SUN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., 1 & 2, SUYOJIT HEIGHTS, OPP. RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SHARANPUR ROAD, NASHIK 422 002 PAN :AAHCS5734P DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2015-16 QR-2 26Q 24 TO 26 2134 TO 2136/PUN/2016 PRASHANT SUBHASH BEDMUTHA, C/O. NEW PASCHIM MAHARASHTRA PATRA DEPOT, BUDHGAON ROAD, MADHAVNAGAR, SANGLI-416416 PAN :ABVPB4014D DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 QR-2 QR-3 QR-4 26Q 26Q 26Q 2 SECTION 200A SECOND GROUP ASSESSEE BY : SL.NO.11,12 TO 14, 15,16 TO 17, 18 TO 21,22,23 24 TO 26, 27, 28 TO 33 NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS) SL.NOS. 1 TO 10, 34 TO 37, 38 TO 41, 42 TO 45 SHRI R. RAMKRISHNAN REVENUE BY : SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI / 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). 27 2168/PUN/2016 S.S. OIL REFINERY, PLOT NO.F-17, MIDC, KUPWAD 416436 PAN : AALFS1980N DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 QR-4 26Q 26Q 26Q 8 TO 33 2322 TO 2327/PUN/2016 LADGE PROJECTS & TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., FLAT NO.10, PLOT NO.1/88, 1/89, INDRAPRASTHA APARTMENT, NAGALA PARK, KOLHAPUR 416 003 PAN : AACCL1640E DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 QR-2 24Q 34 TO 37 2256 TO 2259/PUN/2016 M/S. SAFARI HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED, OPP. S.T. STAND, NEAR SHIVAJINAGAR STATION, SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE 411005 PAN : AABCH4601E DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2013-14 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 QR-4 QR-3 QR-1 QR-2 24Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 38 TO 41 2290 TO 2293/PUN/2016 RAHUL AGARWAL, PLOT NO.141, SINDH HOUSING SOCIETY, AUNDH, PUNE 411007 PAN : AAXPA7899Q DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 QR-1 QR-2 QR-3 QR-4 26Q 26Q 26Q 26Q 42 TO 45 2294 TO 2297/PUN/2016 M/S. KUNJ GLASS PRIVATE LIMITED, GATE NO.920/921, SANASWADI, SHIRUR, PUNE 422 008 PAN : AAACK7509B DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 QR-1 QR-2 QR-3 QR-4 26Q 26Q 26Q 26Q / DATE OF HEARING : 05.01.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.01.2017. 3 SECTION 200A SECOND GROUP 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 ASSE SSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE SAID AMENDMENT WAS INT RODUCED 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. 4. IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANJAY RUPAMAL POPTANI VIDE ITA NOO.2028/PUN/2016 THERE WAS A DELAY OF 5 DAYS IN FI LING OF THIS APPEAL. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 5 DAYS IN THE CASE OF MOTILAL CHORDI A TOBACCO PRIVATE LIMITED VIDE ITA NO.2030 & 2031/PUN/2016. SIMILARLY, IN TH E CASE OF SHRI AVINASH KRISHNAJI PORE VIDE ITA NOS.2033 TO 2036/PUN/2016 T HERE WAS A DELAY OF 1 DAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS. IN THE CASE OF PRASHANT S UBHASH BEDMUTHA VIDE ITA NOS. 2134 TO 2136/PUN/2016 THERE WAS A DELAY OF 5 D AYS IN FILING OF THE APPEALS AND IN THE CASE OF S.S. OIL REFINERY VIDE I TA NO.2168/PUN/2016 THERE WAS A DELAY OF 6 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED CONDONATION PETITIONS REQUESTING FOR CONDONAT ION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, THE DELAY IN FILIN G OF THE APPEALS BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE CONDONED. 4 SECTION 200A SECOND GROUP 6. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NOS.2241 TO 2250/PUN/2016 I N THE CASE OF M/S. MMF SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AS THE LEAD CASE FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE ON HAND. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED LATE FILING FEE U/S.23 4E FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THE TDS STATEMENTS FOR A.Y. 2013-14( QUARTERS 2,3, & 4) . 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 OBSERVED THAT SECTION 234E HAS BEEN BR OUGHT INTO STATUTE W.E.F. 01-07-2012. THE ASSESSEES CASE PERTAINS TO THE PE RIOD DURING WHICH SECTION 234E WAS EFFECTIVE. HE HELD THAT ANY DEMAND RAISED U/S.234E IS NOT APPEALABLE BEFORE CIT(A). FOR THE ABOVE PROPOSITIO N, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RASHMIK ANT KUNDALIA VS. UNION OF INDIA REPORTED IN 2015 (54) TAXMANN.COM 200 . EVEN ON MERIT ALSO, HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS EMPOWERED T O CHARGE LATE FILING FEE U/S.234E. ACCORDING TO HIM, SECTION 234E OF THE AC T IS TO BE READ ALONGWITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT. HE OBSERV ED THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200(3) ANY PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM ON OR A FTER 01-04-2005 AND AFTER PAYING THE TAX DEDUCTED TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRA L GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME WILL PREPARE SUCH STATEMENT FOR SUC H 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. 7. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5 SECTION 200A SECOND GROUP 8. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE ISSUE R ELATING 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 A ND 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 R EFERENCE 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 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 AUTHOR ITY OR THE PERSON 6 SECTION 200A SECOND GROUP 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 T HE 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 PERSON, TO DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES, 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 REFERRED TO IN SECTION 192(1A) OF THE ACT. THE ONUS IS UPON SUCH PERSON T HAT HE SHALL AFTER PAYING THE TAX TO THE CREDIT OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WITHIN PRES CRIBED 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 AUTHORIZED, SUCH STATEMENT IN SUCH FORM AND VERIFIED IN SUCH MA NNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH PARTICULARS AND WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE PROVIDED . THE DUTY IS UPON A PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH VARIOUS PROVISIONS UNDER THE CHAPTER AND ALSO UPON AN EMPLOYER WHO IS MAKING DED UCTION OUT OF THE PAYMENTS 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 DELIVERED TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, IN SUCH FORM AND VERIFIED AND SETTING FORTH 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 W AY OF FURNISHING THE STATEMENT IN PAPER FORM OR FURNISHING THE STATEMENT ELECTRONICALLY UNDER DIGITAL SIGNATURE OR AFTER VERIFICATION. INITIALLY, SUCH S TATEMENT HAD TO BE FURNISHED IN PAPER FORM AND LATER BY WAY OF AMENDMENT, THE PROCE DURE FOR FURNISHING THE STATEMENT ELECTRONICALLY WAS PROVIDED. ONCE THE ST ATEMENT HAS BEEN SO SUBMITTED BY THE DEDUCTOR OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE , THEN PROCESSING OF STATEMENT IS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. THE SAID SECTION WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009 W.E.F. 01.04.2010. THE SAID SECTION 200A OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER:- 7 SECTION 200A SECOND GROUP 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, SUCH 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 AM OUNT COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 200 AND SECTION 201, AND ANY AMOUNT P AID OTHERWISE BY WAY 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 FINANCIA L YEAR 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 T O BE COMPUTED AND INTEREST, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH SUMS DEDUCTIBLE 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 AM OUNT COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID U NDER SECTION 200 AND SECTION 201, AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OT HERWISE BY WAY OF TAX OR INTEREST; (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 8 SECTION 200A SECOND GROUP (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 ACT, HE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY, BY WAY OF FEES, SUM OF RS.200/- FOR EVERY DAY DURIN G WHICH THE FAILURE CONTINUES. THE SAID PROVISIONS WERE INSERTED BY TH E FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 01.07.2012. UNDER SUB-SECTION (2), IT IS FURTHER P ROVIDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF FEES REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL NOT EXCEE D 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 W ITH SUB-SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT OR THE PROVISO TO SECTION 206C(3) OF THE AC T. THE PROVISIONS OF SAID SECTION HAVE BEEN MADE APPLICABLE TO A STATEMENT TO BE DELIVERED OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED ON OR AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF JULY, 201 2. 23. READING THE ABOVE SAID PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, I T TRANSPIRES THAT WHERE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY A DEDUCTOR OUT O F THE ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTEE, THEN THE ONUS IS UPON THE DEDUCTOR UNDER SECTION 20 0 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 BE DELIVERED WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. RULE 31A OF THE RULES P ROVIDED THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE FURNISHING OF STATEMENT FOR TAX DEDUCTION AT SO URCE ON QUARTERLY BASIS. SECTION 234E OF THE ACT LEVIES FEES FOR DEFAULT IN FURNISHING THE STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. SUCH FEES IS TO BE PAID BE FORE DELIVERING OR CAUSING TO BE DELIVERED A STATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT OR PROVISO TO SECTION 206C(3) OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WO RDS, IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS DEFAULTED IN NOT DELIVERING THE STATEMENT OR CAUSIN G TO DELIVER THE STATEMENT WITHIN TIME PRESCRIBED, THEN HE IS LIABLE TO PAY TH E FEES WHICH IS SO PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT AND SUCH FEES SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AM OUNT OF TAX DEDUCTIBLE OR COLLECTABLE AT SOURCE BUT THE SAME HAS TO BE PAID A LONG WITH STATEMENT 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 INTERE ST, IF ANY, AND THE SAME SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SUMS DEDUCTIBLE IN ADDI TION 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 PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 200A(1)(B) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IN ADDITION TO BOT H THESE AMOUNTS, CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A OF THE ACT PROVIDES FEES TO BE LEVIED WHICH SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF T HE ACT. THE SAID PROVISION TO CHARGE FEES BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR EARLIER PROVISIONS BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.20 15. PRIOR TO THE SAID SUBSTITUTION THOUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT FOR PAYMENT OF FEES FOR DEFAULT IN FURNISHING THE STATEMENT WERE I NSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 01.07.2012, THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY DI D NOT HAVE THE POWER TO 9 SECTION 200A SECOND GROUP CHARGE THE SAID FEES, WHILE PROCESSING THE QUARTERL Y 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 PR OCESSING 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 ASSESSING OFFICER AT BEST COULD CHARGE THE DIFFERENCE IN TAX DEDUCTED AN D NOT PAID IN TREASURY FROM THE DEDUCTOR AND / OR ANY INTEREST PAYABLE ON SUCH DEDUCTION 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 WHILE FURNISHING THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 200(3) OF TH E ACT TO DEPOSIT THE FEES REFERRED TO IN SECTION 234E(1) OF THE ACT. THE LEA RNED CIT-DR STRESSED THAT FEES REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) HAD TO BE PAID WHILE DELIVERING OR CAUSING TO DELIVER THE STATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT OR THE PROVISO TO SECTION 206C(3) OF THE ACT. HOWE VER, VARIOUS REGULATIONS AND THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN THIS REGARD POINT OUT T HAT UNDOUBTEDLY, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEDUCTOR WAS TO DEPOSIT THE T AX 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 PR ESCRIBED AUTHORITY WITHIN STIPULATED TIME, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN CASE ANY DEFAULT OCCURS DUE T O THE NON-PAYMENT OF FEES BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, THEN THE PROVISIONS WHICH HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IS SECTION 200A(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE POWER TO CHA RGE / COLLECT FEES AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS VESTED WI TH THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT ONLY ON SUBSTITUTION OF EARLIER CLAUS E (C) TO SECTION 200A OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.2015. ON CE ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT HAS BEEN MADE APPLICABLE FROM A RESPECTIVE DATE, TH EN THE REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE IS TO APPLY THE SAID PROVISIONS FROM THE SA ID 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 AUT HORITY ONLY BY WAY OF SUBSTITUTION OF CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A(1) OF TH E ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.2015. PRIOR TO SAID SUBSTATION, THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAD NO AUTHORITY TO CHARGE THE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WHILE ISSUING INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. BEFORE E XERCISING THE AUTHORITY OF CHARGING ANY SUM FROM ANY DEDUCTOR OR THE ASSESSEE, THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY 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 SUCH FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, WHILE EXERCISING JURISDICT ION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. THUS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ENABLING PROVISIONS, UNDER WHICH THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IS EMPOWERED TO CHARGE THE FEES, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WHILE 10 SECTION 200A SECOND GROUP PROCESSING THE RETURNS FILED BY THE DEDUCTOR IN RES PECT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE CAN RAISE THE DEMAND ON ACCOUNT OF TAXES, IF ANY, NOT DEPOSITED AND CHARGE INTEREST. HOWEVER, PRIOR TO 01.06.2015, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CHARGE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WHILE PROCESSING TDS RETURNS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ENABLING PROVISIONS , LEVY OF FEES COULD NOT BE EFFECTED IN THE COURSE OF INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER S ECTION 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 BE YOND THE SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. SUCH A LEVY COULD NOT BE EFFECTED IN THE COURSE OF INTIMAT ION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER PROVISIONS ENAB LING THE DEMAND IN RESPECT OF THIS LEVY HAVING BEEN POINTED OUT, NO SUCH LEVY COULD BE EFFECTED. THE SAID PROPOSITION HAS BEEN APPLIED IN VARIOUS DECISIONS O F DIFFERENT BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DECISIONS OF C HENNAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN G. INDIRANI VS. DCIT (SUPRA), AHMEDABAD BENCH OF TRIBUNAL 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) WHER EIN, THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS CHALLENGED. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT NOTED THE FACT THAT WHERE THE DEDUCTOR WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH PERIODICAL QUARTERLY STATEMENTS CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF DEDU CTION OF TAX MADE DURING THE QUARTER, BY THE PRESCRIBED DUE DATE AND THE DELAY I N FURNISHING SUCH TDS RETURNS WOULD HAVE CASCADING EFFECT. IT WAS FURTHE R OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, WHERE THE RE IS AN OBLIGATION ON THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT TO PROCESS THE INCOME-TAX RET URNS WITHIN SPECIFIED PERIOD FROM THE DATE OF FILING, THE RETURNS COULD N OT BE ACCURATELY PROCESSED OF SUCH PERSON ON WHOSE BEHALF TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED I .E. DEDUCTEE, UNTIL INFORMATION OF SUCH DEDUCTIONS IS FURNISHED BY THE DEDUCTOR WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. SINCE THE SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF D EDUCTORS WERE NOT FILING THEIR TDS RETURNS / STATEMENTS WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME FRA ME, THEN IT LEAD TO AN ADDITIONAL WORK BURDEN UPON THE DEPARTMENT DUE TO T HE FAULT OF THE DEDUCTOR AND IN THIS LIGHT AND TO COMPENSATE FOR ADDITIONAL WORK BURDEN FORCED UPON THE DEPARTMENT, FEES WAS SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED UNDER SECT ION 234E OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT LOOKING AT THIS FROM T HIS PERSPECTIVE, SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS NOT PUNITIVE IN NATURE BUT A FEE WHI CH WAS A FIXED CHARGE FOR THE EXTRA SERVICE WHICH THE DEPARTMENT HAD TO PROVIDE D UE TO THE LATE FILING OF TDS STATEMENTS. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE HONBLE HIG H COURT THAT LATE FILING OF TDS RETURNS / STATEMENTS WAS REGULARIZED BY PAYMENT OF FEES AS SET OUT IN SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS OF HONBL E 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 PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WERE HELD TO BE NOT ONEROUS ON THE GROUND T HAT SECTION DOES NOT EMPOWER THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN LATE FILING THE INCOME TAX RETURNS OR THAT NO APPEAL IS PROVIDED FROM ARBI TRARY ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HE LD THAT THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WAS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT BUT WAS CREATURE OF STATU TE AND IF THE LEGISLATURE DEEMS FIT NOT TO PROVIDE REMEDY OF APPEAL, SO BE IT . THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD THAT A PERSON CAN ALWAYS APPROACH THE COURT IN EXTRAORDINARY 11 SECTION 200A SECOND GROUP EQUITABLE JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION AS THE CASE MAY BE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THEREFORE, OBSERVED THA T SIMPLY BECAUSE NO REMEDY OF APPEAL WAS PROVIDED FOR THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ONEROUS AND SECTION 2 34E OF THE ACT WAS HELD TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID. THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALI DITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT HAS ALSO BEEN 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 PASSED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT AND THE SAME MERITS TO BE DISMISSED AT T HE OUTSET. 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 U NDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT BEFORE INSERTION OF CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A( 1) OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.2015. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO T HE MEMORANDUM TO THE FINANCE BILL, 2015 WHILE INTRODUCING THE SAID CLAUS E (C) TO SECTION 200A(1) OF THE ACT. THE FINANCE BILL TOOK NOTE OF THE PROVISI ONS OF CHAPTER XVIIB, UNDER WHICH THE PERSON DEDUCTING TAX I.E. DEDUCTOR WAS RE QUIRED TO FILE QUARTERLY TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE STATEMENT CONTAINING THE DETAIL S OF DEDUCTION OF TAX MADE DURING THE QUARTER BY THE PRESCRIBED DUE DATES. SI MILAR RESPONSIBILITY IS ON A PERSON REQUIRED TO COLLECT TAX OF CERTAIN SPECIFIED RECEIPTS UNDER SECTION 206C OF THE ACT. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE DETERREN CE AGAINST THE DELAY IN FURNISHING TDS / TCS STATEMENTS, THE FINANCE ACT, 2 012 INSERTED SECTION 234E OF THE ACT TO PROVIDE FOR LEVY OF FEES ON LATE FURN ISHING OF TDS / TCS STATEMENTS. THE MEMO FURTHER TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009 INSERTED SECTION 200A IN THE ACT, WHICH P ROVIDED FOR FURNISHING OF TDS STATEMENTS FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT PAYABLE O R REFUNDABLE TO THE DEDUCTOR. IT FURTHER TOOK NOTE THAT HOWEVER, AS SE CTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS INSERTED AFTER THE INSERTION OF SECTION 200A IN THE ACT, THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A OF THE ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR DETERM INATION OF FEES PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF PROCES SING OF TDS STATEMENTS. IT WAS THUS, PROPOSED TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 200A 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. THE MEMO EXPLAINING THE FINANCE BILL, 2015 VERY CATEGOR ICALLY HELD THAT CURRENTLY THERE DOES NOT EXIST ANY PROVISION IN THE ACT TO EN ABLE THE PROCESSING OF TCS RETURNS AND HENCE, A PROPOSAL WAS MADE TO INSERT A PROVISION IN THIS REGARD AND ALSO THE POST PROVISION SHALL INCORPORATE THE MECHA NISM FOR COMPUTATION OF FEES PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE FINANCE BILL FURTHER REFERS TO THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT I.E. AFTER PROCESSIN G OF TDS STATEMENT, INTIMATION IS GENERATED SPECIFYING THE AMOUNT PAYABLE OR REFUN DABLE. THIS INTIMATION GENERATED AFTER PROCESSING OF TDS STATEMENT IS (I) SUBJECT TO RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT; (II) APPEALABLE UNDER SECTI ON 246A OF THE ACT; AND (III) DEEMED AS NOTICE OF PAYMENT UNDER SECTION 156 OF TH E ACT. THE FINANCE BILL FURTHER PROVIDED THAT INTIMATION GENERATED AFTER TH E PROPOSED PROCESSING OF TCS STATEMENT SHALL BE AT PAR WITH THE INTIMATION G ENERATED AFTER PROCESSING OF TDS STATEMENT AND ALSO PROVIDED THAT FAILURE TO PAY TAX SPECIFIED IN THE INTIMATION SHALL ATTRACT LEVY OF INTEREST AS PER PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 220(2) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, AMENDMENTS WERE ALSO MADE IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEME OF PAYMENT OF TDS / TCS BY THE GOVERNMENT, DEDUCTOR / COLLECTOR WHICH ARE NOT RELEVANT FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPE AL AND HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT BEING REFERRED TO. THE FINANCE BILL FURTHER PR OVIDED THAT THE AMENDMENT WOULD TAKE EFFECT FROM 01.06.2015. 12 SECTION 200A SECOND GROUP 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, 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 THE ACT. HOWEVER, POWER ENABLING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CHARGE / LE VY THE FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS RETURNS / STATEMENTS FILED BY A PERSON DID NOT EXIST WHEN SECTION 234E OF THE ACT W AS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012. THE POWER TO CHARGE FEES UNDER THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS STATEMENTS, WAS DW ELLED UPON BY THE LEGISLATURE BY WAY OF INSERTION OF CLAUSE (C) TO SE CTION 200A(1) OF THE ACT 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 I NSERTION OF CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A(1) OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01.06.2015, THEN IN SUCH CASES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT EMPOWERED TO CHARGE FEES UNDER SECTI ON 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 CHARGEABLE 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 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WERE INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2 012, UNDER WHICH THE LIABILITY WAS IMPOSED UPON THE DEDUCTOR IN SUCH CAS ES WHERE TDS STATEMENTS / 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 FE ES CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE LEGISLATU RE TO PROVIDE MECHANISM FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CHARGE AND COLLECT SUCH FE ES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ENABLING PROVISIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PR OCESSING THE TDS STATEMENTS, EVEN IF THE SAID STATEMENTS ARE BELATED , IS NOT EMPOWERED TO 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 S UCH AN AMENDMENT WHERE EMPOWERMENT IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LE VY OR CHARGE THE FEES 13 SECTION 200A SECOND GROUP CANNOT BE SAID TO BE CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND HE NCE, APPLICABLE FOR PENDING ASSESSMENTS. 32. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. VATIKA TOW NSHIP PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS EXPLAINED THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE CONCERN ING RETROSPECTIVITY AND HAVE HELD THAT OF THE VARIOUS RULES GUIDING HOW A LEGIS LATION HAS TO BE INTERPRETED, ONE ESTABLISHED RULE IS THAT UNLESS CONTRARY INTENT ION 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 ACTIVITIES. THE MEMO EXPLAINING THE FINANCE BILL, 2015 VERY CLEARLY ALSO RECOGNIZES THAT AND REFERS TO THE CURRENT PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3) TO SECTIO N 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 EXISTING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A OF THE ACT DID NOT PROVI DE FOR DETERMINATION OF FEES PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT AT THE TIME O F PROCESSING OF TDS STATEMENTS. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS THUS, PROPOSED TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A OF THE ACT SO AS TO ENABLE THE COMPUTA TION OF FEES PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF PROCESSING O F TDS STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO CHARGE FEES PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT I N THE INTIMATION ISSUED AFTER INSERTION OF CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 200A(1) OF THE A CT W.E.F. 01.06.2015. THE LEGISLATURE ITSELF RECOGNIZED THAT UNDER THE EXISTI NG PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A OF THE ACT I.E. PRIOR TO 01.06.2015, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF PROCESSING THE TDS STATEMENTS DID NOT HAVE POWER TO CHARGE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT AND IN ORDER TO COVER UP TH AT, THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY WAY OF INSERTION OF CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 2 00A OF THE ACT. IN SUCH SCENARIO, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT INSERTION MADE BY SECTION 200A(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, WHERE THE LEGISLATURE W AS AWARE THAT THE FEES COULD BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT AS PER FIN ANCE ACT, 2012 AND ALSO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A OF THE ACT WERE INSE RTED BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009, UNDER WHICH THE MACHINERY WAS PROVIDED FOR TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROCESS THE TDS STATEMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE INSERTION CATEGORICALLY BEING MADE W.E.F. 01.06.2015 LAYS DOWN THAT THE SAI D AMENDMENT IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND CANNOT BE APPLIED TO PROC ESSING 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 UNDE R SECTION 200A OF THE ACT LEVYING SECTION 234E OF THE ACT LATE FEES IS NOT VA LID. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT KEPT OPEN THE ISSUE ON CONSTITUTIONAL VA LIDITY OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. WE HAVE ALREADY REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF H ONBLE BOMBAY 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 AS SESSING OFFICER WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS STATEMENTS / RETURNS IN THE PRES ENT SET OF APPEALS FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 01.06.2015, WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO CH ARGE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT IN ALL THESE APPEALS DOES N OT STAND AND THE DEMAND 14 SECTION 200A SECOND GROUP RAISED BY WAY OF CHARGING THE FEES UNDER SECTION 23 4E OF THE ACT IS NOT VALID AND THE SAME IS DELETED. THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ADJUSTMENT PROVIDED UNDER SECTI ON 200A OF THE ACT 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 TH E 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 WAS WITHIN HIS LIMIT TO LEVY FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT EVEN WHI LE PROCESSING THE TDS STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CHARGED FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WHILE PROCESSING THE STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT BEFORE 01.06.2015, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE RELIANCE PLACE D UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT- DR ON THE SAID PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE CHENNAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL 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 CE RTAIN RELAXATIONS WERE GIVEN TO THE APPLICATION OF SAID SECTION AND IT WAS HELD THAT 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. 9. 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 PROCEDUR AL IN NATURE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS STATEMEN TS / 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. ACCORDINGLY, I NTIMATION ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT IN ALL THE APPEALS DOES NOT STAND AND THE DEMAND RAISED BY CHARGING THE FEES UN DER SECTION 234E OF THE 15 SECTION 200A SECOND GROUP ACT IS NOT VALID AND THE SAME IS DELETED. THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 10. IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE OTHER ASSESSEES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEALS. FOLLOWING OUR OBSERVATIONS GIV EN IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS N OT EMPOWERED TO CHARGE FEES U/S.234E OF THE ACT WHILE ISSUING INTIMATION U /S.200A OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS S ET ASIDE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. 11. 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)-10, PUNE / CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. 5. 6. CIT-10, PUNE / CONCERNED CIT ##$, $, / DR, ITAT, PUNE; * / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // //TRUE COPY// /0 /ASSISTANT REGISTRAR $ , / ITAT, PUNE
Mehul