Case Law Details
Garrison Engineer (E/M) Vs JCIT (TDS) (ITAT Agra)
The common issue involved in these appeals is that the AO imposed late fees u/s 234E of the Act., where the enabling clause (c) was inserted in the section 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ‘Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India’, 83 com 137(Guj).
In ‘Shri ‘Fatehraj Singhvi and Others’ (supra) it has been held, inter alia, as follows:
“22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Under the circumstances, we find that substitution made by clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under Section 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest.”
In the above view, respectfully following ‘Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Ors’ (Supra), and our own finding in the case of ‘Sudershan Goyal vs. DCIT (TDS)’ in ITA No. 442/Agra/2017 vide order dtd. 09.04.2018, we accept the grievance of the assessees as genuine. Accordingly, the orders of the CIT(A) are reversed and the fee so levied under section 234E of the Act is cancelled.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
