Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Per contra, the Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that in these set of appeals, the respective Ld. CIT (Appeals) had dismissed these appeals filed before them on the ground of substantial late filing fees of the appeals and without going into the merits of the cases.
6. We have heard both the sides on this issue of unavailability of enabling the provisions to the Assessing Officer for levy of late filing fees on the assessee in respect of defaults of non-filing of TDS statement for the period prior to 01.06.2015. It is undisputed fact that the provisions of section 234E Group of (111 Cases) u/s.234E of the Act was originally brought into Statute w.e.f. 01.7.2012 by the Finance Act, 2012. However, the un-amended provisions of section 200A of the Act were not to provide the powers to the officers to charge the late filing fees. In principle, the provisions of section 234E of the Act enables the officers for the procedure to levy late filing fees when the assessee failed to file the TDS statements under sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Act. There is no dispute about the fact on availability of enabling the provisions w.e.f. 01.06.2015 only. The Finance Act, 2015 provides for the amendment to section 200A of the Act enabling the Assessing Officers to levy late filing fee for default of late filing of TDS statements. There are huge amount of litigation on the issue i.e. if the Assessing Officer has power to levy the late filing fees when the assessee files the TDS statement for the quarters filing upto 01.06.2015. However, there is no dispute about the non-availability of such powers for the quarter related to the period later to 01.06.2015.

B. Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital (supra) :

"15. In other words, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka explained the position of charging of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act and the mechanism provided for computation of fees and failure for payment of fees under section 200A of the Act which was brought on Statute w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The said amendment was held to be prospective in nature and hence, notices issued under section 200A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act relating to the period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015 were not maintainable and were set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. In view of said proposition being laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka (supra), there is no merit in observations of CIT(A) that in the present case, where the returns of TDS were filed for each of the quarters after 1 st day of June, 2015 and even the order charging late filing fees was passed after June, 2015, then the same are maintainable, since the amendment had come into effect. The CIT(A) has overlooked the fact that notices under section 200A of the Act were issued for computing and charging late filing fees under section 234E of the Act for the period of tax deducted prior to 1st day of June, 2015. The same cannot be charged by issue of notices after 1st day of June, 2015 even where the returns were filed belatedly by the deductor after 1st June, 2015, where it clearly related to the period prior to 01.06.2015.

Group of (111 Cases) u/s.234E C. Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India, 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka-HC) dated 26.08.2016 :

"24. If the facts of the present cases are examined in light of the aforesaid observation and discussion, it appears that in all matters, the intimation given in purported exercise of power under Section 200A are in respect of fees under Section 234E for the period prior to 1.6.2015. As such, it is on account of the intimation given making demand of the fees in purported exercise of power under Section 200A, the same has necessitated the appellant-original petitioner to challenge the validity of Section 234E of the Act. In view of the reasons recorded by us hereinabove, when the amendment made under Section 200A of the Act which has come into effect on 1.6.2015 is held to be having prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for the fee under Section 234E could be made for the TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015.
Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondentauthority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent."
D. Alpha Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT vide ITA No.1450/PUN/2019 and others dated 13.12.2019 "7. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. We have also given considerable thought to the facts and circumstances involved in all these cases. It is observed on perusal of Section 200 sub section (3) r.w.s. 206C sub-section (3) proviso that when the assessee has deducted TDS, he has to deposit the amount in the Government account and after doing that he has to furnish the TDS statement before the Income Tax Authorities within the prescribed time limit. If there is late filing of those TDS statements then the Revenue Authorities may charge late filing fees u/s.234E of the Act. That however, this power the Legislature was provided to the Authorities by inserting Clause (c) to Section 200A(1) of the Act w.e.f. 01.06.2015. There are plethora of cases which decided this issue that if TDS statements were filed prior to 01.06.2015 then there cannot be any levy of late fees u/s.234E of the Act. That however, TDS statements filed after 01.06.2015 would attract the late filing fees as per Section 234E of the Act. We further observe that in these instant cases before us, in some of the cases, TDS statements were filed prior to 01.06.2015 while in some other cases, they were filed after 01.06.2015. This is the position on merits. That however, the Ld. CIT(Appeal)‟s in their respective orders has not dealt with the merits of these cases and has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the ground that there is substantial delay in filing of these appeals and also for the reason that the reasonableness attributed to that delay could not be established by the assessees therein.