M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

2012-13 (Q2) (24Q) 1,86,800 7-May-2015 14-May-2015 2. 2012-13 (Q3) (24Q) 1,68,400 7-May-2015 15-May-2015 3. 2012-13 (Q4) (24Q) 146,800 19-May-2015 2-Jun-2015 4. 2012-13 (Q2) (26Q) 1,86,800 7-May-2015 15-May-2015 5. 2012-13 (Q3) (26Q) 1,68,400 7-May-2015 15-May-2015 6. 2012-13 (Q4) (26Q) 1,44,400 7-May-2015 15-May-2015 7. 2012-13 (Q1) (24Q) 1,20,000 7-May-2015 13-Mar-2015 8. 2012-13 (Q2) (24Q) 1,01,600 7-May-2015 13-Mar-2015 9. 2012-13 (Q3) (24Q) 83,200 7-May-2015 13-Mar-2015 10. 2012-13 (Q4) (24Q) 59,200 7-May-2015 13-Mar-2015 11. 2012-13 (Q1) (26Q) 1,19,400 4-Mar-2015 16-Mar-2015 12. 2012-13 (Q2) (26Q) 1,01,000 4-Mar-2015 16-Mar-2015 ITA No.328 to 351/Chny/2023 - 5 -

We find that the issue, on merits, have elaborately been adjudicate by co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in its decision titled as Evergreen Harvest Agro Products P. Ltd. V/s ITO (ITA Nos.185 to 194/Chny/2022 order dated 12.05.2022) as under: - 5.1 Upon careful consideration, we find that the provisions of Section 234E, as inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 01/07/2012, envisages levy of fees @Rs.200/- for every day of default on the part of the assessee to deliver the statement of TDS within the time prescribed u/s 200(3) or Section 206C(3). Section 200A deal with processing of statements of tax deducted at source. A clause (c) has been inserted into this Section by Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 01/06/2015 which provide that the fees, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of Section 234E. 5.2 The case of the assessee is that since the amendment to Section 200A by way of insertion of clause (c) is only with effect from 01/06/2015, no fees would be payable by the assessee for any period prior to 01/06/2015 as held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi V/s Union of India (73 Taxmann.com 252 26/08/2016) which has subsequently been followed by same court while adjudicating Writ Petition No. 618/2015 filed by Shree Ayappa Educational Charitable Trust. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Karnataka, for ease of reference, could be extracted in the following manner: - 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar and Mr.A.Shankar, appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department.

On 1.6.2015, clauses (c) to (f) came to be substituted under Section 200A providing that the fee under Section 234E can be computed at the time of processing of the return and the intimation could be issued specifying the same payable by the deductor as fee under Section 234E of the Act. Section 200A would also be relevant in the present matter. Hence, the same for ready reference is reproduced as under: "Processing of statements of tax deducted at source. 200A. (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source 69[or a correction statement] has been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 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 information in the statement; (b) the interest, if any, shall be computed on the basis of the sums deductible as computed in the statement; (c) the fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section to 351/Chny/2023 - 10 - 234E; (d) the sum payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the deductor shall be determined after adjustment of the amount computed under clause (b) and clause (c) against any amount paid under section 200 or section 201 or section 234E and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest or fee; (e) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and 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 pursuance of the determination under clause (d) 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 year in which the statement is filed. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, "an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the statement" shall 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 source, where such rate is not in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) For the purposes of processing of statements under sub-section (1), the Board may make a scheme for centralised processing of statements of tax deducted at source to expeditiously determine the tax payable by, or the refund due to, the deductor as required under the said sub-section."

In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, two aspects may transpire one, for Section 234E providing for fee and given privilege to the defaulter if he pays the fee and hence, when a privilege is given for a particular purpose which in the present case is to come out from rigors of penal provision of Section 271H(1)(a), it cannot be said that the provisions of fee since creates a counter benefit or reciprocal benefit in favour of the defaulter in the rigors of the penal provision, the provisions of Section 234E would meet with the test of quid pro quo.

In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid.

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 respondent-authority 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.

As such, as recorded earlier, it is on account of the intimation received under Section 200A for making computation and demand of fees under Section 234E, the same has necessitated the appellant to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 234E. When the intimation of the demand notices under Section 200A is held to be without authority of law so far as it relates to computation and demand of fee under Section 234E, we find that the question of further scrutiny for testing the constitutional validity of Section 234E would be rendered as an academic exercise because there would not be any cause on the part of the petitioners to continue to maintain the challenge to constitutional validity under Section 234E of the Act. At this stage, we may also record that the learned counsels appearing for the appellant had also declared that if the impugned notices under Section 200A are set aside, so far as it relates to computation and intimation for payment of fee to 351/Chny/2023 - 15 - under Section 234E, the appellant-petitioners would not press the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act. But, they submitted that the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E may be kept open to be considered by the Division Bench and the Judgment of the learned Single Judge may not conclude the constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act.

Under these circumstances, we find that no further discussion would be required for examining the constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act. Save and except to observe that the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act before the Division Bench of this Court shall remain open and shall not be treated as concluded.

In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the impugned notices under Section 200A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E as they relate to for the period of the tax deducted prior to 1.6.2015 are set aside. It is clarified that the present judgment would not be interpreted to mean that even if the payment of the fees under Section 234E already made as per demand/intimation under Section 200A of the Act for the TDS for the period prior to 01.04.2015 is permitted to be reopened for claiming refund. The judgment will have prospective effect accordingly. It is further observed that the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E shall remain open to be considered by the Division Bench and shall not get concluded by the order of the learned Single Judge.

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 5.3 On the other hand, the case of the revenue would derive strength from the contrary decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in Rajesh Kourani V/s Union of India (297 CTR 502 20/06/2017) wherein the Hon’ble court has declined to concur with the aforesaid adjudication of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, by observing as under: - 2. Brief facts are as under.

The petitioner is a proprietor of one M/s SaiBaba Textiles which is engaged in the manufacture and trading of ladies garments. In course of the business, the petitioner would make payments to individuals and agencies, many of which would require deducting tax at source. The provisions under the Act would further require the petitioner to file periodic statements of such tax deducted at source and depositing the tax in the Government within the time prescribed. With effect from 01.07.2012, section 234E was introduced in the Act for levying fee for default in furnishing the statement of tax deducted or collected at source. As per rule 31A of the Rules, the person responsible for deduction of tax in terms of sub-section (3) of section 200 would have to file quarterly statements in prescribed form. Sub- rule (2) of rule 31A prescribed dates by which such statements would have to be filed.

Section 200A of the Act pertains to processing of statements of tax deducted at source. This provision provides for processing the statement filed by person deducting the tax. Prior to 01.06.2015, this provision did not contain any reference to the adjustment of fee to be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. This provision was made only with effect from 01.06.2015. to 351/Chny/2023 - 16 -

In the petition, the petitioner has raised following threefold grievances: I. That section 234E of the Act is ultra-vires and unconstitutional. II. Rule 31A of the Rules insofar as it prescribes longer period for the Government to file the statements as compared to the other assessees is discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional. III. Prior to 01.06.2015, section 200A did not authorize the Assessing Officer to make adjustment of the fee to be levied under section 234E of the Act. This provision introduced with effect from 01.03.2016 is not retrospective and therefore, for the period between 01.07.2002 i.e. when section 234E was introduced in the Act and 01.06.2015 when proper mechanism was provided under section 200A of the Act for collection of fee, the department could not have charged such fee.

Appearing for the petitioner, learned advocate Shri Parth Contractor at the outset, stated that in view of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in case of Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India [2015] 373 ITR 268/229 Taxman 596/54 taxmann.com 200, he has instructions not to press the challenge to constitutionality of section 234E of the Act. He however made detailed submissions with respect to the other two grievances of the petitioner. Regarding rule 31A of the Rules, he pointed out that the legislature has prescribed different time limits for filing statements for the Government and the rest of the assessees. The special concession to the Government agencies was wholly unnecessary and not based on any rational. The same difficulties and complexities which are faced by Government agencies would also be faced by the individual assessees. 7. With respect to the amendment in sub-section (1) of section 200A, counsel submitted that prior to such amendment, there was no mechanism provided under the Act for collection of fee under section 234E of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore could not have adjusted such fee in terms of section 200A of the Act. Counsel drew our attention to an intimation sent by the Assessing Officer, purported to be under section 200A of the Act, in which, he had adjusted a sum of Rs.33,123/- by way of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel relied on a decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in case of Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 380/161 ITD 313 (Pune - Trib.), in which, the Tribunal held that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel also relied on a decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that the amendment in section 200A with effect from 01.06.2015 cannot have retrospective effect. 8. On the other hand learned counsel Shri Manish Bhatt for the department opposed the petition contending that two different time limits for filing statements under rule 31A are for Government and nonGovernment agencies. Looking to the multilayered system of operation of the Government agencies and overall workload, the legislature thought it fit to grant 15 days additional time to the Government agencies to file the statements. This is therefore not a case of discrimination, but a case of reasonable classification. to 351/Chny/2023 - 17 -

With respect to the amendment in section 200A, counsel submitted that the charging provision is section 200E of the Act. Section 200A merely provides a mechanism. Such a provision cannot govern the charging provision. Even in absence of amendment in section 200A, the Assessing Officer was always authorized to levy fee in terms of section 200E of the Act. At best, the amendment in the said provision should be seen as clarificatory or providing a mechanism which till then was missing. Counsel referred to the decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan v. Union of India [2015] 63 taxmann.com 243/235 Taxman 446 (Raj.), where, in the context of challenge to the vires to the section 234E of the Act, incidentally this issue also came up for consideration.

In order to appreciate the rival contentions, we may take a closer look at the statutory provisions applicable. Section 200 of the Act pertains to duty of the person deducting tax and imposes a duty on a person deducting tax in accordance with the foregoing provisions of chapter-XVII to pay such sum to the credit of the Central Government within the time prescribed. Sub-section (3) of section 200 requires such a person to prepare such statements for the prescribed periods and to file the same within the prescribed time. Section 200C of the Act makes similar provision for the person responsible for the collection of tax at source to deposit the same with the Government revenue and to file a statement within the prescribed time. 11. Section 200A of the Act pertains to processing of statements of tax deducted at source. We would notice the provisions of this section prior to 01.06.2015 and the changes made therein by virtue of Finance Act, 2015, with effect from 01.06.2015. Further, we would take note of provisions of section 234E of the Act. For the time being, we may notice that section 200A provides for a mechanism for processing a statement filed under section 200 of the Act and enables the Assessing Officer to make some adjustments and to intimate the final outcome to the assessee. 12. Section 234E which pertains to fee for default in furnishing the statements was introduced for the first time by the Finance Act, 2012, with effect from 01.07.2015. Section 234E reads as under: "Fee for default in furnishing statements. 234E.(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub- section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C, he shall be liable to pay, by way of fee, a sum of two hundred rupees for every day during 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 statement in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 200 or the 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 ITA No.328 to 351/Chny/2023 - 18 - 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."

With effect from 01.07.2012, the legislature also introduced section 271H of the Act providing penalty for failure to furnish statements required to be filed under sub-section (3) of section 200 or under proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C of the Act. As per sub-section (2) of section 271H in case of default to file the statements, the assessee may be liable to penalty of not less than rupees ten thousand but not more than rupees one lakh. Under sub-section (3) of section 271H however, such penalty would be avoided if the assessee proves that he had paid the tax deducted or collected alongwith interest and he had filed the necessary statement within one year from the time prescribed for filing such statements. We may also record that clause (k) of sub-section (2) of section 272A provides for penalty for failure to deliver the statement within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C at a rate of rupees one hundred for every date during which the failure continues. However, with effect from 01.07.2012, a proviso was added limiting the effect of this provision upto 01.07.2012. In other words, after 01.07.2012, the penalty provision of section 271H would apply in such cases of defaults.

Section 200A(1) of the Act prior to 01.06.2015 provided as under: Section 200A(1) "Processing of statements of tax deducted at source. 200A. (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source [or a correction statement] has been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 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 information in the statement; (b) the interest, if any, shall be computed on the basis of the sums deductible as computed in the statement; (c) the sum payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the deductor shall be determined after adjustment of amount computed under clause (b) against any amount paid under section 200 and section 201, and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest; (d) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and 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) amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (c) shall be granted to the deductor: (f) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination to 351/Chny/2023 - 19 - under clause (d) 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 year in which the statement is filed. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, "an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the statement" shall 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 source, where such rate is not in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (2) For the purposes of processing of statements under sub-section (1), the Board may make a scheme for centralised processing of statements of tax deducted at source to expeditiously determine the tax payable by, or the refund due to, the deductor as required under the said sub-section." With effect from 01.06.2015, sub-section (1) of section 200A was amended. In the amended form, the same provision reads as under: Section 200A(1) "Processing of statements of tax deducted at source. 200A. (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source [or a correction statement] has been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 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 information in the statement; (b) the interest, if any, shall be computed on the basis of the sums deductible as computed in the statement; (c) the fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance 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 computed under clause (b) and clause (c) against any amount paid under section 200 or section 201 or section 234E and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest or fee; (e) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and 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 pursuance of the determination to 351/Chny/2023 - 20 - under clause (d) 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 year in which the statement is filed. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, "an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the statement" shall 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 source, where such rate is not in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (2) For the purposes of processing of statements under sub-section (1), the Board may make a scheme for centralised processing of statements of tax deducted at source to expeditiously determine the tax payable by, or the refund due to, the deductor as required under the said sub-section."

In view of such statutory provisions, we may consider the petitioner's two challenges. Coming to the question of discriminatory nature of rule 31A of the Rules, it can be seen that sub-rule (1) of rule 31A of the Rules provides for filing of the statements in prescribed forms as required under sub-section (3) of section 200. Sub-rule (2) of rule 31A lays down the time limit for filing such quarterly statements and provides as under: "(2) Statements referred to in sub-rule (1) for the quarter of the financial year ending with the date specified in column (2) of the Table below shall be furnished by- (i) the due date specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table, if the deductor is an office of Government; and (ii) the due date specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table, if the deductor is a person other than the person referred to in clause (i) TABLE Sl. Date of ending of Due date Due date No. quarter of financial year (1) (2) (3) (4) 1 30th June 31st July of the financial year 15th July of the financial year 2 30th September 31st October of the financial 15th October of the financial year year 3 31st December 31st January of the financial 15th January of the financial year year 4 31st March 15th May of the financial year 15th May of the financial year immediately following the immediately following the financial year in which the financial year in which the to 351/Chny/2023 - 21 - deduction is made. deduction is made." This rule thus, while laying down the last date by which such statements should be filed, draws two categories; in case of deductor is an office of government and in case of a deductor is a person other than the office of the government. Consistently, the office of the government is granted 15 days extra time as compared to the other deductors. For example, the statement for the date of the quarter ending on 30th June, an ordinary deductor would have to file a statement latest by 15th July of the same year, whereas for the Government office, the last date for filing such statement would be 31st July of the said year. This 15 days extra time is a consistent feature in all four quarters. The short question is, did the legislature discriminate in doing so? It is well settled that Article 14 does not prohibit reasonable classification but frowns upon class legislation. In the affidavit in reply filed, the respondents have pointed out that multiple agencies are involved in every transaction in the Government offices and the same therefore cannot be compared with the private individuals or business houses. We do not found that the extra time of 15 days for the Government to file a return of deduction of tax at source is in any manner either unreasonable or discriminatory. If the legislature found it appropriate to grant slightly longer period to the government agencies looking to the complex nature of transactions involved, the volume and turnover of such transactions and filtering necessary statements required at many stages, in our opinion, the same was perfectly legitimate. Looking to the differences between the Government agencies and private assessees in the context of providing the last date for filing the statements, do not form a homogeneous class which cannot be further bifurcated.

We now come to the petitioner's central challenge viz. of non permissibility to levy fee under section 234E of the Act till section 200A of the Act was amended with effect from 01.06.2015. We have noticed the relevant statutory provisions. The picture that emerges is that prior to 01.07.2012, the Act contained a single provision in section 272A providing for penalty in case of default in filing the statements in terms of section 200 or proviso to section 206C. Such penalty was prescribed at the rate of Rs.100 for every day during which the failure continued. With effect from 01.06.2012, three major changes were introduced in the Act. Section 234E as introduced for the first time to provide for charging of fee for late filing of the statements. Such fee would be levied at the rate of Rs.200/- for every day of failure subject to the maximum amount of tax deductible or collectible as the case may be. Section 271H was also introduced for the first time for levying penalty for failure to furnish the statements. Such penalty would be in the range of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1 lakh. No penalty would be imposed if the tax is deposited with fee and interest and the statement is filed within one year of the due date. With addition to these two provisions prescribing fee and penalty respectively, clause (k) of sub-section (2) of section 272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012.

In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing it with Government revenue and filing of the statements more stringent. to 351/Chny/2023 - 22 -

In this context, we may notice that section 200A which pertains to processing of statements of tax deducted at source provides for the procedure once a statement of deduction of tax at source is filed by the person responsible to do so and authorizes the Assessing Officer to make certain adjustments which are prima-facie or arithmetical in nature. The officer would then send an intimation of a statement to the assessee. Prior to 01.06.2015, this provision did not include any reference to the fee payable under section 234E of the Act. By recasting sub- section (1), the new clause-c permits the authority to compute the fee, if any, payable by the assessee under section 234E of the Act and by virtue of clause-d, adjust the said sum against the amount paid under the various provisions of the Act.

In plain terms, section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing mechanism for processing a statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustments, which are, as noted earlier, arithmetical or prima-facie in nature. With effect from 01.06.2015, this provision specifically provides for computing the fee payable under section 234E of the Act. On the other hand, section 234E is a charging provision creating a charge for levying fee for certain defaults in filing the statements. Under no circumstances a machinery provision can override or overrule a charging provision. We are unable to see that section 200A of the Act creates any charge in any manner. It only provides a mechanism for processing a statement for tax deduction and the method in which the same would be done. When section 234E has already created a charge for levying fee that would thereafter not been necessary to have yet another provision creating the same charge. Viewing section 200A as creating a new charge would bring about a dichotomy. In plain terms, the provision in our understanding is a machinery provision and at best provides for a mechanism for processing and computing besides other, fee payable under section 234E for late filing of the statements. 20. Even in absence of section 200A of the Act with introduction of section 234E, it was always open for the Revenue to demand and collect the fee for late filing of the statements. Section 200A would merely regulate the manner in which the computation of such fee would be made and demand raised. In other words, we cannot subscribe to the view that without a regulatory provision being found for section 200A for computation of fee, the fee prescribed under section 234E cannot be levied. Any such view would amount to a charging section yielding to the machinery provision. If at all, the recasted clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A would be in nature of clarificatory amendment. Even in absence of such provision, as noted, it was always open for the Revenue to charge the fee in terms of section 234E of the Act. By amendment, this adjustment was brought within the fold of section 200A of the Act. This would have one direct effect. An order passed under section 200A of the Act is rectifiable under section 154 of the Act and is also appealable under section 246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this situation also would be obviated. Even prior to 01.06.2015, it was always open for the Revenue to calculate fee in terms of section 234E of the Act. The Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra) held that section 200A was not merely a to 351/Chny/2023 - 23 - regulatory provision, but was conferring substantive power on the authority. The Court was also of the opinion that section 234E of the Act was in the nature of privilege to the defaulter if he fails to pay fees then he would be rid of rigor of the penal provision of section 271H of the Act. With both these propositions, with respect, we are unable to concur. Section 200A is not a source of substantive power. Substantive power to levy fee can be traced to section 234E of the Act. Further the fee under section 234E of the Act is not in lieu of the penalty of section 271H of the Act. Both are independent levies. Section 271H only provides that such penalty would not be levy if certain conditions are fulfilled. One of the conditions is that the tax with fee and interest is paid. The additional condition being that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date.

Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goodwill. The Supreme Court referring to various provisions concerning charging and computing capital gain observed that none of these provisions suggest that they include an asset in the acquisition of which no cost can be conceived. In such a case, the asset is sold and the consideration is brought to tax, what is charged is a capital value of the asset and not any profit or gain. This decision therefore would not apply in the present case.

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed. 5.4 We find that a view favorable to the assessee has been taken by Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in recent decision titled as United Metals V/s ITO (137 Taxmann.com 115) following its earlier decision in Sarala Memorial Hospital V/s UOI (WP (c) No.37775 of 2018 dated 18.12.2018) which is stated to have attained finality. Similar view favorable to assessee has been taken by Chennai Tribunal in its recent decision titled as M/s DRG Rexine Inc. V/s ACIT (ITA No.351/Chny/2021; dated 24.02.2022) following the case law of Fatehraj Singhvi V/s UOI (supra). Admittedly, there is no decision by Hon’ble High Court of Madras. In such a case, an analogy could be drawn from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Vegetable products Ltd. (1972; 88 ITR 192) for the conclusion that in case of two reasonable constructions of taxing statutes, the one that favors the assessee must be adopted. Respectfully following the same, we would hold that a view favorable to the assessee was to be adopted and therefore, the levy of fees u/s 234E for any period prior to 01/06/2015 would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. We order so. In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 could not be sustained. By deleting the same, we allow all the appeals of the assessee. The concerned authorities are directed to re-compute the demand payable by the assessee.

At the same time, Ld. Sr. DR has pointed out that few of the returns have been processed after 01.06.2015 i.e., the date on which amendment in Sec.200A was brought into effect and therefore, the levy of fee was to be upheld in those cases. These appeals have been listed as ITA No.330/Chny/2023 and ITA Nos.342/Chny/2023 to 351/Chny/2023. Concurring with these submissions of Ld. Sr. DR that impugned fees could have been levied while processing the returns after 01.06.2015, the levy of fee is upheld in all these appeals. On the other hand, the levy of impugned fees in all the remaining 13 appeals stands deleted. The Ld. AO is directed to revise the demand in the respective appeals as aforesaid in terms of our above order.