THE CHHATTISGASRH GRAMIN BANK, CHAKARBHATA, BILASPUR(CG) V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ,TDS, BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG)

ITA 77/BIL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3923 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: K B TIWARI
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY,JM / ITA NO. 39/RPR/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 CHHATTISGARH RAJYA GRAMIN BANK, LAGRA, LAGRA, MOPKA, BILASPUR (CG) PIN-495006 PAN : JBPCO2897G ....... APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BILASPUR(CG) / RESPONDENT / ITA NOS. 40 & 41/RPR/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2014-15 CHHATTISGARH GRAMIN BANK, JAIJAIPUR, DIST. JANJGIR-CHAMPA (CG) PAN : BPLBO2298C ......... APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BILASPUR (CG) / RESPONDENT / ITA NO. 42/RPR/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17 CHHATTISGARH RAJYA GRAMIN BANK, BODRI, BODRI, BILASPUR (CG) PIN-495001 PAN : JBPCO3024A ....... APPELLANT / V/S. 2 CHHATTISGARH GRAMIN BANK THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BILASPUR (CG) / RESPONDENT / ITA NOS. 75 TO 79/RPR/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2013-14 & 2014-15 CHHATTISGARH GRAMIN BANK, CHAKARBHATA, NEAR JHULELAL MANDIR, MAIN ROAD, CHAKARBHATA, BILASPUR (CG) PAN :BPLBO1945G ....... APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BILASPUR (CG) / RESPONDENT / ITA NOS. 80 & 81/RPR/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 CHHATTISGARH GRAMIN BANK, JHARADIH, KHARSIYA, DIST. RAIGARH (CG) PAN :JBPCO2772A ....... APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BILASPUR (CG) / RESPONDENT / ITA NOS. 226 TO 233/RPR/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2014-15 & 2016-17 CHHATTISGARH RAJYA GRAMIN BANK NARIYARA, NARIYARA MAIN ROAD, DIST. BILASPUR (CG) PAN :BPLBO2003B ....... APPELLANT / V/S. 3 CHHATTISGARH GRAMIN BANK THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BILASPUR (CG) / RESPONDENT / ITA NO. 264/RPR/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17 CHHATTISGARH RAJYA GRAMIN BANK, BODRI, BODRI, BILASPUR (CG). PIN-495001. PAN : JBPCO3024A ....... APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BILASPUR (CG) / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.B. TIWARI REVENUE BY : SHRI P.K. MISHRA / DATE OF HEARING :17.01.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.01.2019 / ORDER PER BENCH : THESE BUNCH OF APPEALS PREFERRED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES HEREIN EMANATES FROM THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS ), BILASPUR (CG) AS PER GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD. 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS WITH REGARD T O THE IMPOSITION OF LATE FILING FEE U/S.234E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). THESE CASES WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND SIN CE FACTS SIMILAR, ISSUES COMMON, THESE APPEALS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDIC ATION VIDE THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THESE ASSES SEES HAVE CONTENDED THAT PRIOR TO 01.06.2015 THERE CANNOT BE ANY LEVY OF LAT E FEE U/S.234E OF THE 4 CHHATTISGARH GRAMIN BANK ACT. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING SU BMITTED TO CONSIDER ITA NO.39/RPR/2017 AS LEAD CASE. ITA NO. 39/RPR/2017 A.Y.2014-15 3. THE BRIEF FACTS IN ITA NO. 39/RPR/2017 ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE FILED ITS TDS RETURN LATE AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSE D LATE FILING FEE OF RS.1800/- U/S.234E OF THE ACT. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE O RDER UNDER THE AFORESAID SECTION. IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT WRIT PETITION FILED AGAINST DEMAND RAISED U/S .234E OF THE ACT HAS BEEN STAYED BY DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS LIKE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN IN THE CASE OF OM PRAKASH DHOOT VS. UOI, WPN 1981/214, H IGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.P.C. NO.31498/2013 (J), HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF ADITYA BIZORP VS. UOI IN WP NO.6918/6938/2014 IN I.T. ORD ER DATED 19.02.2014 AND HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH IN TH E CASE OF SHREE BUILDERS VS. UOI IN W.P. NO.11831/2014. THE LD. AR OF THE ASS ESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL HIGH COURTS HAVE STAYED FOR THE CONST ITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE U/S.23 4E OF THE ACT AS PER DISCUSSION GIVEN IN HIS ORDER. 6. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING VEHE MENTLY ARGUED THAT PRIOR TO 01.06.2015, LEVY OF LATE FEE U/S.234E WAS NOT PER MISSIBLE IN LAW AND THEREFORE, SHOULD BE DELETED. 7. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES B ELOW. 5 CHHATTISGARH GRAMIN BANK 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORD AND HEARD THE RIV AL CONTENTIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE RAIPUR BENCH IN A SERIES OF CASES FROM ITA NOS.117 TO 120/RPR/2015, ITA N OS.88 & 89/RPR/2015, ITA NOS.100 & 101/RPR/2015, ITA NOS.96 & 97/RPR/2015, ITA NO.79/RPR/2015, ITA NOS. 99 & 101/RPR/2016, ITA NO.1 29/RPR/2016 AND ITA NO.130/RPR/2016 WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS FOLLOWS: A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SI BIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT- ITA NO.90/ASR/2015, VIDE ORDER DA TED 9 TH JUNE, 2015 (2015) 171 TTJ 145 (ASR) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY INTER ALIA HOLDING AS FOLLOWS: 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. IN ADDITION TO HIS ARGUM ENT ON THE MERITS, LEARNED COUNSEL HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO T HE REPORTS ABOUT THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HONBLE HIGH COURTS, INCLU DING HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF NARATHMAPILA LP S CHOOL VS UNION OF INDIA [WP (C) 31498/2013(J)], HONBLEKARANATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADITHYABIZOR P SOLUTIONS VS UNION OF IN DIA [WP NO. 6918-6938/2014(T-IT), HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OM PRAKASHDHOOTVS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 1981 OF 2014] AND OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RASHMIKANTKUNDALIAVS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 771 OF 2014], GRANTING STAY ON THE DEMANDS RAISED IN RESPECT OF F EES UNDER SECTION 234E. THE FULL TEXT OF THESE DECISIONS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE US. HOWEVER, AS ADMITTEDLY THERE ARE NO ORDE RS FROM THE HONBLE COURTS ABOVE RETRAINING US FROM OUR ADJUDIC ATION ON MERITS IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL, AND AS, IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING, THIS APPEAL REQUIRES ADJUDICATION ON A VERY SHORT LEGALISSUE, WITHIN A NARROW COMPASS OF MATERIAL FAC TS, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. WE MAY PRODUCE, FOR READY REFERENCE, SECTION 234 E OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2012 AND WAS BROUGHT INTO EFFECT FROM 1ST JULY 2012. THIS STATUTORY PROVISION IS AS FOLLOWS: 234E. FEE FOR DEFAULTS IN FURNISHING STATEMENTS (1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WHERE A PERSON FAILS TO DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED A STATEMENT WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SE CTION 200 OR THE PROVISO TO SUBSECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C, H E SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY, BY WAY OF FEE, A SUM OF TWO HUNDRED RUPEES FOR EVERY DAY DURING WHICH THE FAILURE CONTINUES. (2) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTIBLE OR COLLECTIBLE, AS THE CASE MAY BE. 6 CHHATTISGARH GRAMIN BANK (3) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) SHALL BE PAID BEFORE DELIVERING OR CAUSING TO BE DELIVERED A STATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-SECTION (3) OF SEC TION 200 OR THE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C. (4) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO A STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR TH E PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C WHICH IS TO BE DELI VERED OR CAUSED TO BE DELIVERED FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE O R TAX COLLECTED AT SOURCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ON OR AFTE R THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2012. 6. WE MAY ALSO REPRODUCE THE SECTION 200A WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2009 WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 2010. T HIS STATUTORY PROVISION, AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIM E, WAS AS FOLLOWS: 200A: PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT S OURCE (1) WHERE A STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE, O R A CORRECTION STATEMENT, HAS BEEN MADE BY A PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION AS DEDUCTOR) UNDER SECTION 200, SUCH STATEMENT SHALL BE PROCESSED IN THE FOLLO WING MANNER, NAMELY: (A) THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE 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 DUE 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 OTHERWISE 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 (E) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PUR SUANCE 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 FI NANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED. EXPLANATION : FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, 'AN INCORRECT CLAIM APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMEN T' SHALL MEAN A CLAIM, ON THE BASIS OF AN ENTRY, IN THE STAT EMENT (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; 7 CHHATTISGARH GRAMIN BANK (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS UN DER SUB-SECTION (1), THE BOARD MAY MAKE A SCHEME FOR CENTRALISED PR OCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO EXPEDITIOUS LY DETERMINE THE TAX PAYABLE BY, OR THE REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUC TOR AS REQUIRED UNDER THE SAID SUBSECTION. 7. BY WAY OF FINANCE ACT 2015, AND WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST JUNE 2015, THERE IS AN AMENDMENT IN SECTION 200A AND THIS AMENDMENT, AS STATED IN THE FINANCE ACT 2015, IS AS FOLLOWS: IN SECTION 200A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, IN SUB-SECTI ON (1), FOR CLAUSES (C) TO (E), THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED WITH EFFECT FROM THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2015, NAMELY: (C) THE FEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E; (D) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF TH E AMOUNT COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AND CLAUSE (C) AGAINST AN Y AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 200 OR SECTION 201 OR SECTION 234E AN D ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY WAY OF TAX OR INTEREST OR FEE; (E) 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 (D); AND (F) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PUR SUANCE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (D) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR. 8. IN EFFECT THUS, POST 1ST JUNE 2015, IN THE COURS E OF PROCESSING OF A TDS STATEMENT AND ISSUANCE OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A IN RESPECT THEREOF, AN ADJUSTMENT COULD ALSO BE MADE IN RESPEC T OF THE FEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT WHAT IS IMPUGNED IN APPEAL BEFORE US IS THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, AS ST ATED IN SO MANY WORDS IN THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION ITSELF, AND, AS THE LAW STOOD, PRIOR TO 1ST JUNE 2015, THERE WAS NO ENABLIN G PROVISION THEREIN FOR RAISING A DEMAND IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E. WHILE EXAMINING THE CORRECTNESS OFTHE INTIMATION U NDER SECTION 200A, WE HAVE TO BE GUIDED BY THE LIMITED M ANDATE OF SECTION 200A, WHICH, AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, PERMITT ED COMPUTATION OF AMOUNTRECOVERABLE FROM, OR PAYABLE TO, THE TAX DEDU CTOR AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS: (A). AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ARITHME TICAL ERRORS AND INCORRECT CLAIMS APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMENT - SECTION 200A(1)(A) (B). AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT FOR INTEREST, IF ANY, COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SUMS DEDUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STATEMENT. - SECTION 200A(1)(B) 9. NO OTHER ADJUSTMENTS IN THE AMOUNT REFUNDABLE TO , OR RECOVERABLE FROM, THE TAX DEDUCTOR, WERE PERMISSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WI TH THE LAW AS IT EXISTED AT THAT POINT OF TIME. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, IN OUR CONSID ERED VIEW, THE ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E WAS INDEED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS CONTEMP LATED UNDER SECTION 8 CHHATTISGARH GRAMIN BANK 200A. THIS INTIMATION IS AN APPEALABLE ORDER UNDER SECTION 246A(A), AND, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED LEGALI TY OF THE ADJUSTMENT MADE UNDER THIS INTIMATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE SCOPE OF THE SECTION 200A. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT DONE SO. HE HAS JUSTIFIED TH E LEVY OF FEES ON THE BASIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E. THAT IS NO T THE ISSUE HERE. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER SUCH A LEVY COULD BE EFFECTED IN T HE COURSE OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A. THE ANSWER IS CLEARLY IN NEGATI VE. NO OTHER PROVISION ENABLING A DEMAND IN RESPECT OF THIS LEVY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO US AND IT IS THUS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ENABLING PROVISION UNDER SECTION 200A, NO SUCH LEVY COULD BE EFFECTED. AS INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A, RAISING A DEMAND ORD IRECTING A REFUND TO THE TAX DEDUCTOR, CAN ONLY BE PASSED WITHIN ONE YEA R FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR WITHIN WHICH THE RELATED TDS STATEME NT IS FILED, AND AS THE RELATED TDS STATEMENT WAS FILED ON 19TH FEBRUARY 20 14, SUCH A LEVY COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN MADE AT BEST WITHIN 31ST MARCH 2015. THAT TIME HAS ALREADY ELAPSED AND THE DEFECT IS THUS NOT CURA BLE EVEN AT THIS STAGE. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSOBEARING IN MIN D ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E IS UNS USTAINABLE IN LAW. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 9. THEREAFTER, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE IS AS FOLLOWS: 4. WHEN ATTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE WAS INVITED TO THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, HE FAIRLY ACCEPTS THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE AFORESAID JUDICI AL PRECEDENT. HE HOWEVER RELIED UPON THE STAND OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN T HE VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS INDEED IN ERROR IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PROCESSING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E BY WAY OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMANDS. ASS ESSEES GET THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 10. FURTHER, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, JODH PUR ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED U/S.200A OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND C ONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND CREATING DEMAND FOR LATE FILING OF FEES U/S.234E OF THE ACT WAS JUSTIFIED OR NOT, IN THE CASE OF GOVERNMENT SECONDARY SCH OOL VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS. 57 TO 60/JODH/2017 HAS HELD AS UNDER : 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSIN G THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON CASE RECORD AND CAREFULLY GOING THROUGH THE PAPE R BOOK AS WELL AS THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD. AR, WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CROPPED UP BEFORE US IN THE CASE OF RANTAM GRANITE MARBLES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS VIDE ITA NOS. 419 TO 423/JODH/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2013-14 AND 2014-15 ORDER DATED 18.05.2017 WHEREIN WE HAVE HELD AS UNDER: 9 CHHATTISGARH GRAMIN BANK 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK AS WELL AS THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD. AR. THE ONLY ISS UE ARISING OUT OF ALL THESE APPEARS IS AS TO AT WHAT POINT OF TIME CHARGE ABILITY OF LEVYING FEES CAN BE DONE EVEN PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT WAS EFFECTE D I.E.1.06.2015. WE OBSERVE THAT IN THE CASE OF G. INDRANI(SUPRA.), THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH HAS HELD THAT PRIOR TO 01.06.2015, THERE WAS NO ENA BLING PROVISION OF SECTION 200A OF THE ACT FOR MAKING ADJUSTMENT IN RE SPECT OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO TAX DEDUCTED A T SOURCE BY LEVYING FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION IN LEVYING FEE U/S.234E OF THE ACT WHI LE PROCESSING THE STATEMENT AND MADE ADJUSTMENT U/S.200A OF THE ACT W HICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THUS WHILE PROCESSING STATEMENT UNDER SE CTION 200A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENT BY LEVYING FEE UNDER SECTION 234E PRIOR TO 01.06.2015. THEREFORE, THE TR IBUNAL WAS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE FEE LEVIED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WHILE PROCESSING THE STATE MENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ADJUSTMENT PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT AND DELETED THE SAME THE EYE OF LAW. 11. THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SIBIA HEALTHCARE (SUPRA.) HAS OPINED THAT THE MATTER IN QUESTION WAS IF THE FEES U/S.234E IN RESPECT OF DEFAULTS IN FURNISHING TDS STATEMENT COULD BE LEVIED IN INTIMATION U/S.200A OF THE ACT SO FAR AS PERIOD PRI OR TO 1.06.2015 WAS CONCERNED. IT WAS HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF FE E U/S.234E WAS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 12. SIMILARLY, THE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KRISHNA ART SILK CLOTH PVT. LTD. (SUPRA.) HELD THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CHARGED FEES AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE U/S.234E OF THE ACT FOR LATE FILING OF TDS WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY T HE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS HELD BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH THAT TDS STATEMENT W AS FAILED ON 19.2.2014, SUCH A LEVY COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN MADE AT BEST WITHIN 31.03.2015. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT TIME HAD ALREA DY ELAPSED AND DEFECT WAS THUS NOT CURABLE EVEN AT THIS STAGE. ACCORDINGL Y, THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF FEES U/S.234E WAS UNSUSTA INABLE IN LAW, DELETED THE LEVY OF LATE FEE IMPOSED U/S.234E OF TH E ACT. 13. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS W HICH WERE PLACED BEFORE US, ON PERUSAL AND ANALYZING THE DETA ILS , IT IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT PRIOR TO 1.6.2015, THERE WAS NO ENABLING PROVISION IN SECTION 200A OF THE ACT FOR RAISING A DEMAND IN RESPECT OF LEVYING FEE U/S.234E OF THE ACT. THEREFO RE, WE HOLD THAT THE INTIMATION U/S.200A OF THE ACT AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT SO FAR AS LEVYING OF FEES U/S.234E OF THE ACT IS, THER EFORE, SET ASIDE AND THE FEES LEVIED IS DELETED. GROUND RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. IN VIEW OF THE MATTER, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESA ID CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISIONS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HEREIN. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 39/RPR/2017 IS A LLOWED. 10 CHHATTISGARH GRAMIN BANK 13. IN OTHER APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSES, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT THE AMOUNTS. SINCE ALL OTHER FACTS, ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES ARE SAME AND SIMILAR, THE SAME RULING AS IN IT A NO.39/RPR/2017 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS TO OTHER SAID APPEALS HEREIN ALSO. THEREFORE, FOR THESE CASES ALSO, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A PPEALS) AND ALLOW THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- ANIL CHATURVEDI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER / RAIPUR ; / DATED : 31 ST JANUARY, 2019. SB !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS), BILASPUR (CG) 4. THE CIT (TDS), BHOPAL( M.P) !'# $$%& , ' %& , ()* , / DR, ITAT, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR. 6. #+,-. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // '0 / BY ORDER, $1 %* / PRIVATE SECRETARY ' %& , / ITAT, RAIPUR. 11 CHHATTISGARH GRAMIN BANK DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 17. 01.2019 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 28 .01 .201 9 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER