Indian Overseas Bank,, Anand v. The Dy.CIT, TDS,, Gaziabad

ITA 740/AHD/2016 | 2013-2014
Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 74020514 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAACI1223J
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 740/AHD/2016
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant Indian Overseas Bank,, Anand
Respondent The Dy.CIT, TDS,, Gaziabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 27-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 26-10-2016
Next Hearing Date 26-10-2016
Assessment Year 2013-2014
Appeal Filed On 23-03-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.737 TO 742/AHD/2016 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2013-14 AND ITA NOS.743 & 744/AHD/2016 ASSTT.YEAR : 2014-15 M/S.INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK GRAM PANCHAYAT BUILDING OPP: PRIMARY SCHOOL AT. GOPALPUR DIST. ANAND 388 370 PAN : AAACI 1223 J VS DCIT TDS SECTOR 3 GAZIABAD. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIMAL D. SHUKLA AR REVENUE BY : MS.SONIA KUMAR CIT - DR / DATE OF HEARING : 26/10/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/10/2016 !'/ O R D E R PRESENT APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A)-IV BARODA PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEARS 2013- 14 AND 2014-15. 2. SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS THAT ASSESSEE-BANK FAILED TO SUBMITS ITS TDS RETURNS ON DUE DATE AND FILED TH E SAME BELATEDLY. WHILE PROCESSING RETURNS THE LD.AO OBSERVED THAT STATEME NT IN FORM NO.26Q WERE NOT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WELL WITHIN THE TIME THEREFORE IT DESERVES TO BE CHARGED WITH FINE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THERE ITA NO.737 TO 744/AHD/2016 2 WAS A DELAY IN SUBMITTING STATEMENTS IN DIFFERENT Q UARTERS OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 AND 2013-14 I.E. ASSTT.YEARS 2013-14 AND 20 14-15. ON THE BASIS OF DELAY THE LD.AO HAS CALCULATED FINE REQUIRED TO BE LEVIED UPON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT EARLIER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITA NO.3 271/AHD/2014 CHALLENGING ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) DATED 30.10.2014. IN THIS A PPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED FINE LEVIED UPON IT UNDER SECTION 234E QUA NINE INTIMATIONS FOR THE ASSTT.YEARS 2013-14 AND 2014-15. THE TRIBUNAL WHIL E CONSIDERING THE ISSUE HAS OBSERVED THAT AGAINST EACH INTIMATION SEPARATE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THEREFORE THE ASSESS EE SHOULD HAVE FILED INDEPENDENT NINE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL ACCORDINGLY TREATED ONE APPEAL I.E. PERTAINED TO QUARTER-II FAL LING IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2013-14 AS VALID APPEAL AND ALLOWED THAT APPEAL. ACCORDIN GLY THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE FINE IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 234E VIDE OR DER DATED 3.9.2015. 3. AFTER RECEIPT OF THE TRIBUNAL ASSESSEE HAS AGAIN FILED NINE APPEALS I.E. ITA NOS.736 TO 744/AHD/2016. NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED ALL THESE APP EALS FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED EIGHT MAS. BEARING NOS.11 5 TO 122/AHD/2016. IN THIS WAY THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT RESTORATION OF EIG HT APPEALS. TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THESE MAS. AND RESTORED THESE APPEALS TO T HEIR ORIGINAL NUMBERS VIDE ORDER DATED 21.10.2016. IN THIS WAY EIGHT APPEALS BEARING ITA NO.737 TO 744/AHD/2016 ARE BEING LISTED FOR ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT THESE APPEALS ARE TIME BARRED BY 428 DAYS. IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL AFF IDAVIT OF SHRI KRISHNA PRASAD BRANCH MANAGER OF ASSESSEE-BANK HAS BEEN FILED. IT IS DEPOSED IN THE AFFIDAVIT ITA NO.737 TO 744/AHD/2016 3 THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS PASSED EX PARTE ORDER ON 30.10.2014 WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON 21.11.2014. BRANCH MANAGER SHRI AMIT VERMA HAS FILED ONLY ONE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WHEREAS NINE AP PEALS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FILED. IT APPEARS THAT SHRI VERMA WAS UNDER IMPRES SION THAT SINCE PENALTY FOR NON-SUBMISSION OF TDS STATEMENT WAS LEVIED UNDER SE CTION 234E IT IS A UNIFORM PENALTY IN TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR DIFFERE NT QUARTERS. THEREFORE HE HARBOURED A BELIEF THAT ONE APPEAL WOULD BE SUFFICI ENT. DUE TO THIS WRONG IMPRESSION INDEPENDENT APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED. PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WAS MADE. THE LD.DR OPPOSED THE PRAYER OF TH E ASSESSEE. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT ONE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN TIME LIMIT MEANING THEREBY THE AS SESSEE WAS VIGILANT ABOUT PROSECUTING ITS INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS. IT HAS AN IMPRESSION THAT PENALTIES PERTAIN TO DIFFERENT QUARTERS COULD BE GOT ABSOLVED IN ONE APPEAL. HAD THIS APPEAL BEEN TAKEN UP FOR HEARING WITHIN A REASONABL E PERIOD OF ITS FILING THEN POSSIBLY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN T HE DELAY OF TIME GAP SPENT DURING THE PENDENCY OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN OTHER WORDS THE APPEAL WAS FILED IN 2014 WHICH HAS BEEN DISPOSED BY THE TR IBUNAL ON 3.9.2015. THIS TIME GAP FROM THE FILING OF THE APPEAL TILL THE DIS POSAL MIGHT NOT HAVE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING IMMEDIATELY. CONSIDERING IT AS A PROCEDURAL DELAY AND ON ACCOUNT OF SOME MISCONCEPTION I CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED WITH THE APPEALS ON MERIT. 7. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD.REPRESENTATIVES I HAV E GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD T HAT ON MERIT THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY TH E DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.3271/AHD/2014 ORDER D ATED 3.9.2015. THIS ORDER READS AS UNDER: ITA NO.737 TO 744/AHD/2016 4 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 30 TH OCTOBER 2014 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) UPHOLDING LE VY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) ON THE ASSESSEE AND BY WAY OF INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER S ECTION 200A IN RESPECT OF PROCESSING OF TDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 Q2. 2. ALTHOUGH AS MANY AS NINE INTIMATIONS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 & 2014-15 ARE ATTACHED WITH THIS APPEAL SINCE A SEPARATE APPEAL IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED AGAINST EACH INTIMATION I TAKE THIS APPEAL AS APPEAL AGAINST THE FIRST INTIMATION SO ATTACHED I.E. INTIMATION DATED 10 TH NOVEMBER 2013 FOR Q2 OF 2013-14 RAISING DEMAND OF RS.8 210/- UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. 3. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 4 GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE SHORT GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF LATE FILING FEES IN THE COURSE OF PROCESSING TDS RETURN UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF T HE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 5. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS NOW SQUARELY C OVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF SIBIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT - ITA NO.90/ASR/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 9 TH JUNE 2015 WHEREIN THE DIVISION BENCH HAS INTER ALIA OBSERVED AS U NDER :- 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 ARGUMENT ON THE MERITS LEARNED COUNS EL HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE REPORTS ABOUT THE DECISIONS OF VARIO US HONBLE HIGH COURTS INCLUDING HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF N ARATH MAPILA LP SCHOOL VS UNION OF INDIA [WP (C) 31498/2013(J)] HONBLE KARA NATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADITHYA BIZOR P SOLUTIONS VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 6918-6938/2014(T- IT) HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OM PRA KASH DHOOT VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 1981 OF 2014] AND OF HONBLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 771 OF 2014] GRANTING STAY ON THE DEMANDS RAISED IN RESPECT OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E. THE FULL TEXT OF THESE DECISIONS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE US. HOWEVER AS ADMITTEDLY THERE ARE NO ORDERS FROM THE HONBLE COURTS ABOVE RETRAINING US F ROM OUR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL AND A S IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS APPEAL REQUIRES ADJUDICATION ON A VERY SHORT LEGAL ISSUE WITHIN A NARROW COMPASS OF MATERIAL FACTS WE ARE PR OCEEDING TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL ON MERITS. ITA NO.737 TO 744/AHD/2016 5 5. WE MAY PRODUCE FOR READY REFERENCE SECTION 23 4E 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 STATEME NT WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR THE PROVISO TO SUBSECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C HE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY BY WAY OF FEE A SUM OF TWO HUNDRED RUPEES FOR EVERY DAY DURI NG 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. (3) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) SHALL BE PAID BEFORE DELIVERING OR CAUSING TO BE DELIVERED A STAT EMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR T HE 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 THE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C WHICH IS TO BE DELIVERED OR CAUSED TO BE DELIVERED FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE OR TAX COLLECTED AT SOURCE AS THE CASE MAY BE ON OR AFTER 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. THI S STATUTORY PROVISION AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME 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 SECT ION 200 SUCH STATEMENT SHALL BE PROCESSED IN THE FOLLOWING 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; ITA NO.737 TO 744/AHD/2016 6 (C) THE SUM PAYABLE BY OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF AMOUNT COMPUTED U NDER CLAUSE (B) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 200 AND SECTI ON 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 PAYABLE 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 FINANCIAL YE AR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED. EXPLANATION : FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION 'AN INCORRECT CLAIM APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMENT' SHA LL MEAN A CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF AN ENTRY IN THE STATEMENT (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 THIS ACT; (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS UN DER SUB-SECTION (1) THE BOARD MAY MAKE A SCHEME FOR CENTRALISED PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO EXPEDITIOUSLY DETERMINE THE T AX PAYABLE BY OR THE REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR AS REQUIRED UNDER THE S AID 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 STA TED 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 WIT H EFFECT FROM THE 1 ST 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 THE AMOUNT COMPUT ED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AND CLAUSE (C) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTIO N 200 OR SECTION 201 OR SECTION 234E AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY WA Y OF TAX OR INTEREST OR FEE; ITA NO.737 TO 744/AHD/2016 7 (E) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED AN D SENT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABLE 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 COURSE OF PROCESSING OF A TDS STATEMENT AND ISSUANCE OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A IN RESPECT THEREOF AN ADJUSTMENT COULD ALSO BE MADE IN RESPECT 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 INTIMATIO N UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT AS STATED IN SO MANY WORDS IN THE IMPUGNED INT IMATION ITSELF AND AS THE LAW STOOD PRIOR TO 1ST JUNE 2015 THERE WAS NO ENABLING PROVISION THEREIN FOR RAISING A DEMAND IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 2 34E. WHILE EXAMINING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A WE HAVE TO BE GUIDED BY THE LIMITED MANDATE OF SECTION 200A WHICH AT THE RELEVA NT POINT OF TIME PERMITTED COMPUTATION OF AMOUNT RECOVERABLE FROM OR PAYABLE TO THE TAX DEDUCTOR AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS: (A). AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ARITHMET ICAL ERRORS AND INCORRECT CLAIMS APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMEN T - 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 WIT H THE LAW AS IT EXISTED AT THAT POINT OF TIME. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS IN OUR CONSI DERED VIEW THE ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E WAS INDE ED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 200A. THIS INTIMATION IS AN APPEALABLE ORDER UNDER SECTION 246A(A) AND THEREF ORE THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED LEGALITY 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 THE LEVY OF FEES ON THE BASIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 234E. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER SUCH A LEVY COULD BE EFFECTED IN THE COURSE OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A. THE ANSWER IS CLEARLY IN NEGATIVE. 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 ABSENC E OF THE ENABLING PROVISION UNDER SECTION 200A NO SUCH LEVY COULD BE EFFECTED. AS INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A RAISING A DEMAND OR DIRECTING A REFUND TO THE TAX DEDUCTOR CAN ONLY BE PASSED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR WITHIN WHICH THE RELATED TDS STATEMENT IS FILED AND AS THE RELATED TDS STATEMENT WAS FILED ON 19TH FEBRUARY 2014 SUCH A LEVY COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN M ADE AT BEST WITHIN 31ST MARCH 2015. THAT TIME HAS ALREADY ELAPSED AND THE DEFEC T IS THUS NOT CURABLE EVEN AT THIS STAGE. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF ITA NO.737 TO 744/AHD/2016 8 THE CASE THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 23 4 E IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AN D DELETE THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE GE TS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 6. WHEN THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT WAS BROUGHT TO T HE NOTICE OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HE DID NOT HAVE MUCH TO SA Y EXCEPT TO PLACE HIS RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE FAIRLY DID NOT DISPUTE THAT THE PROVISIONS ACCEPTING LEVY OF LATE FILING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E HAVE INDEED BEEN BROUGHT TO THE STATUTE W.E.F. 1 ST JUNE 2015 AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED MUCH BEFORE THAT DATE. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND BEARING IN M IND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE I HEREBY DELETE THE LEVY OF LATE FILING FEES UNDER SECT ION 234E OF THE ACT BY WAY OF IMPUGNED INTIMATION ISSUED. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RE LIEF ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 3 RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SU PRA) I ALLOW ALL THE APPEALS AND DELETE PENALTY/FINE IMPOSED UPON IT UND ER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IN 8 DIFFERENT QUARTERS IN THE ASSTT.YEARS 2013-14 AND 2014-15. 9. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27 TH OCTOBER 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER