Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh State ... vs Acit, Cpc (Tds), Ghaziabad on 28 May, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH 'A', CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 106/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2013-14 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS ACIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad.
Ltd. Fatehpur , Distt. Kangra PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 107/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2013-14 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS DCIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 108/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2013-14 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS DCIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 109/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2013-14 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS DCIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 110/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2013-14 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS DCIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 111/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2013-14 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS DCIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra. PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 112/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2014-15 2 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS ACIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra. PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 113/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2014-15 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS ACIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 114/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2014-15 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS ACIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 115/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2014-15 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS DCIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra. PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 116/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2014-15 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS ACIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra. PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 117/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2014-15 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS ACIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra. PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 118/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2014-15 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS ACIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra. PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 119/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2014-15 3 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS ACIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra. PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 120/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2014-15 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS DCIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra. PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 121/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2014-15 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS DCIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra. PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 122/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2014-15 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS DCIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra. PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 123/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2014-15 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS DCIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 124/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2015-16 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS ACIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 125/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2015-16 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS ACIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 126/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2015-16 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS ACIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. 4 Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 127/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2015-16 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS ACIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 128/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2015-16 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS ACIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 129/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2015-16 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS ACIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 130/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2015-16 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS ACIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 131/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2015-16 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS DCIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra. PAN No. AAACH4036L ITA No. 132/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2015-16 The Forest D.M. Himachal Pradesh VS DCIT, CPS (TDS) State Forest Corp. Ghaziabad. Ltd. Fatehpur Distt. Kangra PAN No. AAACH4036L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Y.K Sud, CA Respondent by : Ms. Deepika Mohan, Addl.CI T Date of hearing : 14.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 28.05.2018 5 O RDE R PER BENCH: A l l t h e c ap t i o n ed a p p e a l s r e l a t e t o t h e s a me a s se s s ee and are d i r e cte d against s ep a r a t e o r d er s of learned C o m m i s s i o n e r of I n c o m e Ta x ( A pp e a l s ) , P a l a m p ur, a l l da t e d
0 3 . 1 0 . 2 0 17 , p a ss e d i n a pp e a l ag a i n s t o rd e r s pa s s e d u /s 1 5 4 o f t he I n c ome Ta x A c t , 1 9 6 1( i n s h o r t th e " A ct ") .
2. A t t h e o ut s e t i t m a y b e p oi n t ed o u t t h at t h e a b o v e a p p e a l s w e re d e l a y e d f o r f i l i n g by 1 7 d a y s . A n ap p l i c a t i on r e q u e s t i ng c o n do n a t i o n of delay was filed a l on g w i t h an affidavit of S hr i Dinesh K u ma r S h a r m a, D .M . of the a s s e s s e e , s t a ti n g o n o a t h t h a t t he d e l a y w a s ca u se d f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t th e a p p e a l s p e rt a i n ed t o a G o v e r n men t c o m p a n y i . e . F o re s t DM H i m a c h a l P r a d esh S t a t e F o r e s t C o r p o r a t i o n a n d t h e r e w a s no l e g a l h el p a v a i l a b l e i n th e f o r es t d i v i s i o n, s i n c e a l l l e g a l ma t t e r s w e r e c o ntr o l l e d b y t h e h ea d o f f i c e o f the c o m p an y i.e. H i m a c ha l P r a d e sh St a t e F o re s t C o r p o r a t i o n L t d. , S h i m l a, w h e re a l l t h e a c c o un t i n g a nd l e g a l s t a f f w as a v a i l a b l e. I t w a s s t a t e d t h a t t h e d e l a y w as totally u ni n t e n ti o n a l and b e yo n d the c o n tro l of the assessee. Th e Ld. counsel f or assessee r e i ter a t e d the c o n t e n t i on s m a de i n t h e a f f i d a v i t a n d p l e a d e d t h at t h e d e l a y b e c o n d o n e d c on s i d e r i n g t h e ab o v e f a c t s a n d t h e s h o r t d u r a t i o n o f t h e d e l a y i .e . o f o n l y 1 7 d a y s. Th e L d . D R di d n o t o b j e ct t o th e s a m e .
3. I n v i e w o f th e sa m e , w e c o n d o ne t h e de l a y i n al l t he a p p e a l s c o n s i de ri n g t h at t h e a s s es s e e h a d r e a so na b l e c a us e 6 f o r t h e d e l a y i n f i l i n g t h e a p p ea l s a n d f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s h o r tn e s s of t h e p e r i od o f th e d e l a y .
W e s h a l l n o w p roc e e d t o ad j u d i ca te t h e a p pe a l s .
4. I t w a s c o m mo n gr o u n d t h a t t h e i s s u e s i n v ol v e d in a l l t h e a p p e al s w er e i d e n t i ca l , p er t a i n i n g t o c h a r g i n g o f f e e s f o r l a t e f i l i ng o f TD S r e t u r n s a s per t h e p r o v i si o n s o f s e c t i o n 2 3 4 E o f t h e A c t. Th e r e f o r e t h e y w e r e a l l h ea r d t og e t h e r a n d a r e b e i n g d i s p o se d o f f b y t h i s co n s o l i d a te d o r d er . F o r t he s a k e o f c o n v e n i en c e w e s h a l l b e d e a l i n g w i t h t he f a c t s i n t h e a p p e a l o f t he a s s e s s e e i n I TA N o . 1 0 6 / C hd / 2 0 18 a n d t h e d e c i s i o n r e nd e r ed t h e r e i n w i l l ap p l y m u t a t i s mu t a n d i s to o t h e r a p pe a l s al so .
5. B r i e f l y s t a te d , th e f a c ts o f t h e c a s e a re t ha t , re g u l a r TD S s t a t e m e n t f i l e d b y t h e a ss e ss e e w a s i n i t i a l l y p r o c e s se d vide order u /s 200A of the Act, dated 1 8 . 4 . 2 0 1 5. S u b s e q u e nt l y , t he a s s e s se e fi l e d c o r r e c t i on s t at em e n t w hi c h w a s p r o ce s s e d a n d o r d e r u / s 1 5 4 p a s s ed o n 5 . 1 2 . 2 015 c h a r g i n g l a t e fi l i n g f e e u /s 2 3 4 E o f t h e A ct .
6. A g g r i e v e d b y t he s a m e , t h e a s se s s e e w e n t i n ap p e a l b e f o r e th e L d. CI T( A p p e a l s ) , c h a l l en g i n g t he c h ar g i n g o f f e e s a n d a l s o c h a r g i ng t h e s a me i n o rd e r p a s s ed u / s 1 5 4 o f t he A c t . Th e L d . C I T( A ) d i s m i s s e d b ot h t h e c o n t e n t i o n s o f t h e assessee and upheld th e fe es c h a r g ed , fo l l o w i n g th e d e c i s i o n o f t h e H o n ' b l e Gu j a r a t H i g h C o ur t i n t h e c a s e of Rajesh K ou r a n i Vs. Union of India da t e d 2 0 . 0 6 . 2 0 17, r e p o r t e d i n 8 3 Ta x m a n n . c om 1 3 7, w h e r e i n i t w a s h e l d t h a t 7 t h e d e m a nd f o r l a t e f i l i n g o f f e e u / s 2 3 4 E c o u l d b e r a i sed w h i l e pr o c e s si n g TD S s t a t e me n t u / s 2 0 0A o f t h e A c t e v en prior to 0 1 . 0 6 .2 0 1 5 , when the mandate to make s u ch a d j u s t m e nt w h i l e p r o c e s s i n g TD S r e t u r n s u / s 20 0 A o f t h e A c t , d i d n o t e xi s t o n t h e st a t u t e.
7. A g g r i e v e d b y t he s a m e , t he a s se s s e e h a s co m e u p i n appeal b ef o r e us raising following c o mm o n gr o u n d s of appeals:
"1. That CIT(A) was not justified in levying of late filing fees u/s 234E amounting to Rs. 25504/- levied by the ACIT.
2. That the CIT(A) has wrongly sustained the interest of Rs. 259/- & 2056/- wrongly charged by he ACIT on late payment.
3. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that interest u/s 234E as held by Karnataka High Court could not have been levied and she has wrongly applied the Gujrat High Court in preference to the Karnataka High Court.
4. That the. CIT(A) was not upholding the action of AO that rectification u/s 154 could be carried out without notice to the assessee before rectification."
8. W e s h a l l f i r s t be d e a l i n g w i t h G r o u n d N o . 4 r a i s e d b y t h e a s s e s s ee , wh i c h c h a l l en g e s t h e o r d e r o f t h e C I T( A ) i n u p h o l d i n g t h e ac t i o n o f t h e A s se s s i n g O f f i ce r i n c h a r g i n g t h e f e e s u /s 2 3 4E o f t h e A c t i n a n o r d e r p as s e d u / s 1 5 4 o f the Act.
9. L d . c o u n s el f o r t he a s s e s s e e co n t en d e d t h a t t he AO h a d n o p o w e r i n i ti a l l y t o c ha r g e f e e s u / s 2 3 4 E o f t h e A c t , s i nce t h e o r i gi n a l pr oc e s s i n g o f TD S r e t u r n an d t h e c o n s e q u e nt i n t i m a t i o n u / s 2 0 0 A w a s m a d e pr i o r t o 0 1 - 0 6 - 20 1 5 , w h e n t h e r e w a s n o e na b l i n g p r o vi s i o n u / s 2 0 0 A f o r c ha r g i n g t he s a m e . L d. C o u n s el f o r t he a s s es s ee t h e r e fo r e c on t en d e d t h a t 8 t h e f e e s c ou l d no t i n a n y c a se ha v e b e e n l ev i e d b y w a y o f r e c t i f i ca t i o n ma d e u/s 154 of t he A ct . L d . C o un s e l a l t e r n a t el y co n t en d e d t ha t , t h e i ss u e o f c h a rg i n g o f f e e s u / s 234E p r i or to 0 1 . 0 6 . 2 01 5 , was d e b a ta b l e with t wo c o n t r a d i ct o r y d ec i s i o n s o f t h e H i g h C o u r ts , t he H o n ' b l e G u j a r a t H i g h C ou r t r u l i n g ag a i ns t t h e a s s e ss e e i n t h e c a s e o f R a j e s h K o u r an i v s U n i o n O f I n d i a ( 2 0 17 ) 8 3 ta x m a n n . c om 1 3 7 ( G u j ) , wh i l e th e H o n ' b l e K a r na t a k a H i g h C o u rt r u l i n g i n f a v o u r o f t h e a ss e s s e e i n t h e c as e o f Fatehraj Singhvi & Ors vs U ni o n Of India & O rs (2016) 289 C TR (Kar) 6 0 2 . Th e r e f o r e a l s o , L d . C o u ns e l fo r t h e a s s e s s ee c o n t e n d e d t h a t t he f e es co u l d n o t h a ve b e e n c h ar g e d i n a n or d e r p a s s e d u / s 1 5 4 o f t h e A c t , w h ere i n o n l y a p p ar e nt & g l a r i n g m i s t a k e s a re a l l o w e d t o b e r e ct i f i e d . L d .C o u n se l f o r t h e a s s e s s e e a l s o p oi n t e d o ut t h at th e o r d e r u / s 1 54 h a d be e n p a s s e d w i t h o ut a f f o r d i n g a n y o pp o r t u n i t y o f h e ar i n g t o t h e a s s e s s e e a n d t her e f o r e al s o n e ed ed t o b e se t a s i d e .
10. L d . D R , o n t h e ot h e r h a n d , s u ppo r t e d t h e o r d er o f t h e C I T( A p p e al s ) t h at t h e r e w as n o n e e d t o i ss u e sh o w c a u se n o t i c e t o t h e ass e s s e e s i n ce i t h a d b e e n p a s sed o n l y f o r p r o c e s s i ng t h e c o r r e c t i on s t a tem e n t o f TD S f i l e d b y t h e a s s e s s e e i t s e l f a n d n o re c t i f i c at i o n p r oc e e d i n gs h a d b e en i n i t i a t ed b y t he A s s e s s i n g O f f i ce r.
11. W e h a v e h e ar d th e r i v al c on t e n t i o n s a n d p e ru s e d t he o r d e r s o f th e a uth o r i t i e s b e l o w . Th e f a c ts n o t i n di s p u t e a r e t h a t o r i gi n a l l y th e TD S r e t u r n f i l e d b y th e a s se s s e e w a s p r o c e s s e d u / s 20 0 A o f t h e A c t o n 1 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 1 5 an d n o f e e s 9 u / s 2 3 4 E w a s c h a r g e d f o r l a t e f i l i n g o f t h e r e tu r n s . I t i s a l s o a n u n d i s p ut e d f a ct t h at t he s a i d f e e w a s ch a r g e d b y p a s s i n g a n o r der u / s 1 5 4 o f th e A c t o n p r o ce s s i n g t h e c o r r e c t i on s t a t em e n t o f t h e o r i gi n a l TD S r e t u r n f i l e d . Th e i s s u e to b e d e c i d e d i n t h e p r e se n t g r ou n d i s wh e t h e r t he c h a r g e o f th e s ai d f e e s i n a n o rd e r p a ss e d u/ s 1 5 4 o f t he A c t w a s pe r m i s si b l e i n l a w .
12. S e c t i o n 1 5 4 e m po w e r s t h e A ss e ss i n g O f f i ce r t o re c t i f y m i s t a k e s a p pa r en t f r o m r e c o r d w h i c h h a s b e e n i n t e r p r e te d b y t h e H o n ' b l e Ap e x C o u r t i n t h e c a s e o f T. S . B a l a r a m , I TO v s . V o l k a r t B r o th e r s & O t h e r s ( 19 7 1 ) 8 2 I TR 5 0 t o m e a n o n l y o b v i o u s an d p a te n t m i s t ak e s a nd n o t s o me t h i n g w h i c h c an b e e s t a bl i s h e d b y a l o n g dr a wn p r o c e ss o f r ea s o n i n g o n p o i n t s o n w h i c h t h e r e m a y c o n cei v a b l y b e t w o op i n i o n s .
13. I n th e p r e se n t ca s e f e e s u /s 2 3 4E h a s b e e n ch a rg e d i n t h e o r d er p a ss ed u / s 15 4 o f t he A c t . Th e sa i d f e e s c o ul d h a v e b e e n c ha r ge d o n l y i f t he om i s s i o n t o ch a r ge t h e s a m e i n t h e o r i gi n a l i n t i m a t i o n m a d e u / s 2 0 0 A o f th e A c t , on 1 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 15 , w a s a n a p p a r e n t , ob v i o u s a n d g l a r i n g m i s t a k e w i t h n o t w o v i e w s o n i t s c h a r ge a b i l i t y. A d mi t t ed l y t h ere were co n t r a r y de c i s i o n s o f th e Ho n ' b l e Hi g h C ou rt s o n th i s i s s u e o f ch a r g i ng f e e s u / s 2 3 4 E o f t h e A c t w h i l e p r o c e s s i ng r e t u r n s u / s 2 0 0A o f th e A ct p ri or t o 01 . 0 6 . 20 1 5 w h e n t he r e was no e n a b l i ng provision. Th e Ld. CI T( A ) ha s h i m se l f r e f e r r e d t o t h e sa i d d e c i s i o ns , wh i c h a r e t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e H o n ' b l e G u j a r at H i g h C o u r t s t at i n g t h at t h e f ee c o u l d b e c h a r g e d i n t h e i n t i m a t i o n ma d e u / s 2 0 0 A o f t h e A c t e v e n 10 p r i o r t o 1 . 6 . 2 0 15 , w h i l e t h e H on ' b l e K a r n a t ak a H i g h C o u rt s t a t i n g o t h e r wi se . C l e a rl y , th e i s s u e w a s a d eb at a b l e i ss u e a n d t h e r e fo r e do e s n o t q u al i f y a s a g l a r i n g an d o b v i o u s m i s t a k e a p p a r ent f r o m r e c o r d. Th e f e e s , t h e re f o re , i n a n y case could not have been charged by r e c ti f y i n g t he intimation made u/s 200A of the Act.
14. F u r t h e r , w e no te t h a t t h e C h an d i g a r h B e n c h o f t h e I TA T i n a r e c e n t d e c i s i o n i n th e c a s e o f M/s Sonalac P a i n t s & C o a t i n gs L t d . a n d N a g pa l Tr a d i n g C o m p a n y i n I TA N o s . 1 1 5 8 & 9 6 3/ C h d / 2 0 1 7 d at ed 1 . 5 . 2 0 1 8 h a s h e l d t h a t p r i o r t o 0 1 - 0 6 -15 n o f e e s u / s 2 3 4 E w a s c h a r g ea b l e i n t h e i n t i m a t i o n m ad e u / s 20 0 A of t he A c t . Th e I . T. A . T. i n t he said d e ci s i o n ha s considered th e c o n t ra r y dec i s i o n s of H o n ' b l e G uj a r a t H i g h C o u r t i n th e c a s e o f R a je sh K o u r a n i ( s u p r a ) a n d H o n' b l e K ar n a t a ka H i g h C ou r t i n th e c a s e of F a t h e r a j Si n g h v i & O r s . ( s u pr a ) a n d a p p l y i n g th e r a t i o i n the case of Ve g e t a b l e Pr o d u ct s (supra) that in such c i r c u m s t an c e s th e d e c i s i on f a v ou r i n g t h e as s e s se e i s t o be f o l l o w e d, d e c i d ed the i s su e in favour of the assessee f o l l o w i ng t h e d ec i s i o n o f t h e H on ' b l e K a r n a ta k a H i g h C o u r t i n t h e c a se o f F at h e r a j S i n g h v i & O r s . ( s u pr a ) . Th e r e l e v a nt f i n d i n g s o f t h e I . T. A . T. i n t h e s a i d c a s e a re a s und e r :
"8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and also gone through the documents and orders referred to before us by both the parties. The issue in the present appeal pertains to levy of fees u/s 234E on account of late filing of TDS returns. The facts on record are that the said fees were levied while processing the TDS returns filed by the assessee as per the provisions of Section 200A of the Act and further that fees in all the above cases was levied prior to 01.06.2015. Further, we have noted that the provisions of Section 234E for levy of fees on account of 11 late filing of TDS returns was brought on the Statute vide Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 and also that Section 200A, which deals with the processing of TDS returns, gave no mandate to make adjustments on account of levy of fees u/s 234E prior to 01.06.2015 and that the same was brought on the Statute only vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The other relevant Section taken note of is the provisions of Section 246A which lists the orders against which appeal lies to the CIT(A) and which we find that the same includes intimations passed u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act for the relevant assessment year.
9. In the above factual and legal background, we shall now proceed to adjudicate the issue before us. The ld. CIT(A), as we find, dismissed assessees' appeal holding them to be non maintainable and the reason for the same was the observations in the orders passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court that no appeal lies against levy of fees u/s 234E. We are not in agreement with the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. As pointed out above, the fees u/s 234E in the present case was levied in the intimations made u/s 200A of the Act. Such intimations are appealable before the CIT(A) as per the provisions of Section 246A of the Act and in the present case, the assessee had filed appeals against these intimations made u/s 200A. Therefore, all the appeals were maintainable and the ld. CIT(A) had wrongly dismissed the assessees' appeals holding them to be non-maintainable. As for the reliance placed by the CIT(A) on the orders passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, we find that the said judgements have been mis-interpreted by the CIT(A). In both these cases, the constitutional validity of Section 234E was challenged before the Hon'ble High Courts and one of the pleas taken by the counsels of the assessees against the introduction of the said Section in the Statute was that there was no provision for filing appeals against the orders passed levying fees u/s 234E. It was in this context that the Hon'ble High Court held that even if no appeal lay against levy of fees u/s 234E, the remedy of writ still remained with the aggrieved parties and therefore, the constitutional validity of the said Section could not be challenged on this ground. It may be noted that the observation of the Hon'ble High Courts was in the context of no appeal lying against the levy of fees u/s 234E per-se, but where fees are levied by way of adjustment made in intimations u/s 200A, the said intimations are appealable as per the Statute before the CIT(A). In such cases, the levy of fees is challenged by way of filing appeals against the intimations passed against Section 200A and this is the distinguishing fact between the observations made by the Hon'ble Courts where they observed that no appeal lay against levy of fees u/s 234E. The Hon'ble High Courts, obviously were not seized with the adjustment of levy of fees u/s 234E in intimations made u/s 200A and therefore, this observation of the Hon'ble High Court cannot be read to be in the context of adjustment made on 12 account of levy of fees u/s 234E in the intimations passed u/s 200A which, otherwise, are appealable before the CIT(A). In view of the above, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), we hold, is not as per law.
10. Now coming to the merits of the case, we find force in the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no mandate, as per the Statute, to make any adjustment on account of levy of fees u/s 234E while processing TDS returns u/s 200A. We have taken note of the order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court holding the amendment made to Section 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015, giving power to make adjustment on account of fees u/s 234E while processing returns u/s 200A, to be retrospective in nature, stating that this power given to the AO is a machinery provision while the substantive provision of the power to levy fees u/s 234E was always there on the Statute from 01.06.2012. But at the same time, we note that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that levy of fees u/s 234E while processing returns, TDS u/s 200A prior to 01.06.2015 was without any authority of law. With two divergent views of the Hon'ble High Courts on the issue and in the absence of any decision by the jurisdictional High Court, we concur with the ld. counsel for the assessee that as per the well accepted rule of construction if two reasonable constructions of a statute are possible the construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. In view of the same, respectfully following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra), we hold that the fees levied in all the present cases u/s 234E prior to 01.06.2015 in the intimations made u/s 200A was without authority of law and the same is, therefore, directed to be deleted. In view of the above, all the appeals of the assessees stand allowed."
15. I n v i e w of t h e afo r e s a i d de c i s i on o f t h e I TA T, n o fe e s i n a n y c a s e c o u l d h a v e b e e n c h ar g e d p r i o r t o 01 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 5. Th e r e f o r e also there wa s no mistake in th e o r i g i n al intimation made in the present case u/s 200A of the Act p r i o r t o 0 1 . 0 6 .20 1 5 , b y n ot c h ar g i n g f e es u / s 23 4 E o f t he A c t . A n d t h e s am e c o u l d n o t h av e b e e n c h a r g e d n o w b y w a y o f p a s s i ng a n ord e r u / s 15 4 o f th e A c t .
16. F o r t h e a b ov e re a s o n s w e ho l d t h a t n o f e es c o ul d b e c h a r g e d i n th e pr e s e n t c a s e u / s 2 3 4 E i n t h e o r de r p a s sed u / s 1 5 4 of t h e Ac t .
13
17. S i n c e w e h a v e de l e t e d th e f e es c h a r g e d u/ s 2 34 E o n t h e l e g a l g r o u nd r a i s e d , w e s e e n o r e a s o n t o d ea l w i t h t h e r e m a i n i n g g ro u nd s r a i s e d b y t h e a s s e s s e e o n t h e m e r i t s o f t h e i s s u e i n g r ou n d N o s . 1 a n d 3 . A s f o r g r o u nd N o . 2 n o a r g u m e n t s w e re m a d e b ef o r e u s a n d t h e s a m e i s , t h e r e fo r e, d i s m i s s e d.
Th e appeal of the assessee is, t h e r e f or e , partly allowed.
18. I n t h e r e s u l t, al l t h e a p p e a l s of t h e as s e s s ee s t a n d p a r t l y a l l o w e d.
O r d e r p r on o u n c ed i n t h e o p e n cou r t .
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated : 28 t h May, 2018
*Rati*
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A)
4. The CIT
5. The DR
Assistant Registrar,
ITAT, Chandigarh