Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.
2
4. The brief facts as stated by ld. Counsel for the assesse as available in the order of ld. CIT(A) are reproduced hereinbelow:
"Assesseefiled its Form 26Q as per details given under Form Quarter Date of Due date Delay Fee No. filing of of filing in days imposed by Form AO 26Q 3 22.01.2013 15.01.2013 7 1,400.00 26Q 4 16.07.2013 15.05.2013 62 12,400.00 24Q 4 16.07.2013 15.05.2013 62 12,400.00 From the above your Hon'our will find that all the above TDS returns were filed before 01.06.2015 i.e. before the clause `€' inserted in section 200A of the Act which provide that fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. It is not out of place to mention here that section 200A of the Act provides the procedure for processing of statements of tax deducted at source. Therefore, when the sub clause (c) in section 200A has been inserted with effect from 01.06.2015 only, the levy of fee under section 234E for any delay in filing the statement of TDS is contrary to law and therefore, the fee so imposed deserves to be deleted. Assessee rely on the various case laws referred to in the written submissions submitted, wherein various Hon'ble Courts have held that no fee u/s 234E can be charged before the date of insertion of clause `(c)' u/s 200A(1) of the Act.
That judgment dated 28.07.2015 of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajsthan in the case of`DundlodSikshanSansthan vs. Union of India'. In fact this judgment is on the constitutional validity of section 234E.
It is respectfully submitted that the above judgment was duly considered by the Hon'ble ITAT, Division Bench, Chandigarh, in their judgment dated 29.10.2015 in the case of M/s. Khanna Watches Ltd. Vs. The DCIT (CPC)-TDS. In this case also the issue was regarding "Levy of Fees under section 234 E". Facts of this case are similar to the facts of the assesse before your Hon'our. It is submitted that in the present appeals before your Hon'our tax was deposited in time and late filing was only on technical error resulting in no loss to the revenue and such fee could have been recovered only at the time of filing return but not thereafter. Hon'bleITAT considered the issue with regard to levy of fee prior to 1st June 2015, and after considering the judgments of the Hon'ble ITT Amritsar Bench in the case of Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Limited Vs DCIT (TDS) in ITA 90/2015, AND JUDGMENT OF THE Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of the Punjab State Co-operative Bank Employees Pension Fund Trust vs DCIT in ITA 728-730/2015 FOR ay 2014-15, deleted the fee levied u/s 234E of the Act. Hon'ble ITAT held that the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of RashmikantKundaliavs Union of India dated 6.2.2015 and decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of M/s. DundlodShikshanSansthanvs UOI dated 28.7.2015 pertain to the issue of constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act in which constitutional validity of this provision was upheld. The issue in the present appeal have not been considered in these decisions, therefore, clearly distinguishable on facts and issue.
Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Limited vs DCIT (TDS) in ITA No.90/2015, in para 8 of their judgment held that "there was no enabling provision therein for raising a demand in respect of levy of fees under section 234E".

Hon'ble ITAT further held in para 10 of their judgment that "the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope of permissible adjustments contemplated under section 200A".

5. The ld. CIT(A) however rejected all the grounds of the assesse primarily holding as under:

" 5.5 However, the dispute has now been put to rest after the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of M/s. DundlodShikshanSansthanvs Union of India [2015] 63 taxmann.com 243 (Rajasthan). The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 28 July, 2015 has followed the decision of High Court of Bombay in the case of RashmikantKundalia and upheld the constitutional validity of Section 234E and has also decided the issue of legality of orders passed under section 200A levying late filing fee u/s 234E prior to 1.6.2015. The relevant para is reproduced below:-