ARMEKA FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CPC- TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Under section 200(1) of the Act, it is provided that any person deducting any sum in accordance with the provisions of the Chapter shall pay within the prescribed time, the sum so deducted to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs. Under section 200(2) of the Act, any person being an employer, as referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192 of the Act shall pay, within the prescribed tim.e, the tax to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs. Under sub­ section (2A) of the Act, it is provided that where the sum has been deducted in accordance with foregoing provisions of the Chapter, by the office of the Government, then duty is upon the Treasury Officer or the Drawing & Disbursing Officer or any other person, to deliver or cause to be delivered to the prescribed income tax authorities, or to the person authorized by such authority, statement in such form, verified in such manner, setting forth such particulars within such time as may be prescribed. Under section 200(3) of the Act, similar responsibility is on any person deducting any sum on or after first day of April, 2005 in accordance with foregoing provisions of the Chapter, including any person as an employer referred to in section 192(1 A) of the Act. The onus is upon such person that he shall after paying the tax to the credit of Central Government within prescribed time, prepare such statement for such period as may be prescribed and deliver or cause to be delivered to the prescribed income tax authority or any person so authorized, such statement in such form and verified in such manner and setting forth such particulars and within such time as may be provided. The duty is upon a person deducting any sum in accordance with various provisions under the Chapter and also upon an employer who is making deduction out of the payments made to the employees, then sub-section (3) requires that the deductor is to prepare a statement for such period as may be prescribed, which is to be delivered to the prescribed authority, in such form and verified and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed. The said statement is to be delivered within such time as may be prescribed.

Rule 31A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’) provides that every person who is responsible for deduction of tax under Chapter XVIIB shall in accordance with the provisions of section 200(3) of to 1930/PUN/2019 A. Y.: 2013-14 to 2015-16 Armeka Financial Consultants P.Ltd.,

Section 200A of the Act lays down the manner in which the statements of tax deducted at source are to be processed for issuing the intimation. First of all, the sums deductible under the Chapter are to be computed and interest, if any, shall be computed on the basis of such sums deductible as computed in the statements as per clause (a) and (b) under section 200A(1) of the Act. Clauses (c) to (f) reproduced above were substituted for clauses (c) to (e) by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Prior to the substitution, clauses (c) to (e) read as under:- “(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;

As per newly substituted clause (c) w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the fees, if any, is to be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. However, under the earlier clause (c), there was no such provision.

Section 234E(1) of the Act provides that where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered, a statement within time prescribed in section 200(3) of the Act or the proviso to section 206C(3) of the Act, he shall be liable to pay, by way of fees, sum of Rs.200/- for every day during which the failure continues. The said provisions were inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012. Under sub-section (2), it is to 1930/PUN/2019 A. Y.: 2013-14 to 2015-16 Armeka Financial Consultants P.Ltd.,

Reading the above said provisions of the Act, it transpires that where tax has been deducted at source by a deductor out of the account of deductee, then the onus is upon the deductor under section 200 of the Act to prepare a statement in such form and verified in such manner which is prescribed under the Act in which the particulars of tax deduction at source are to be provided and the said statement is to be delivered or cause to be delivered within such time as may be prescribed. Rule 31A of the Rules provided the time limit for the furnishing of statement for tax deduction at source on quarterly basis. Section 234E of the Act levies fees for default in furnishing the statements of tax deducted at source. Such fees is to be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with section 200(3) of the Act or proviso to section 206C(3) of the Act. In other words, in case the assessee has defaulted in not delivering the statement or causing to deliver the statement within time prescribed, then he is liable to pay the fees which is so prescribed under the Act and such fees shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectable at source but the same has to be paid along with statement which is to be delivered under the provisions of section 200(3) of the Act. Though the statement of tax deducted at source has to be furnished by the deductor, no doubt, under section 200 of the Act, but the same has to be processed by the prescribed authority as per provisions of section 200A of the Act. In case there is any variation in the tax, sum deductible under the Chapter and / or their payment, the Assessing Officer is empowered to make adjustments in this regard and also reject incorrect claim made by the deductor which is apparent from the information in the statement filed by the deductor. Further, the Income-tax authority is authorized to charge interest, if any, and the same shall be computed on the basis of sums deductible in addition to the amount of tax deducted at source, which is to be paid to the account of Treasury by the deductor. In case of any default, interest is to be charged against such deductor and the same is to be computed as per provisions of section 200A(l)(b) of the Act. Further, in addition to both these amounts, clause (c) to section 200A of the Act provides fees to be levied which shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. The said provision to charge fees by the prescribed authority has been substituted for earlier provisions by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Prior to the said

Now, looking at various provisions of the Act, the issue needs to be adjudicated in the case of assessee, wherein admittedly, TDS returns which were deemed to be filed by the assessee were filed after delay and the question was whether the Assessing Officer which processing the intimation under section 200A of the Act could charge late fee under the provisions of section 234E of the Act. The assessee claims that the Assessing Officer at best could charge the difference in tax deducted and not paid in Treasury from the deductor and / or any interest payable on such deduction of tax at source. However, till substitution of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. The case of Revenue on the other hand, was that it was the duty of deductor while furnishing the statement under section 200(3) of the Act to deposit the fees referred to in section 234E(1) of the Act. The learned CIT-DR stressed that fees referred to in sub-section (1) had to be paid while delivering or causing to deliver the statement in accordance with provisions of section 200(3) of the Act or the proviso to section 206C(3) of the Act. However, various regulations and the statutory provisions in this regard point out that undoubtedly, the responsibility of the deductor was to deposit the tax deducted at source in time and if not so, then with interest and consequently, where the lax was not paid in time and interest was not paid in time and then, where the statement of tax deducted at source could not be filed before the prescribed authority within stipulated time, the assessee was liable to levy of fees under section 234E of the Act. However, in case any default occurs due to the non-payment of fees by the assessee in this regard, then the provisions which has to be considered is section 200A(l)(c) of the Act. The power to charge / collect fees as per provisions of section 234E of the Act was vested with the prescribed authority under the Act only on substitution of earlier clause (c) to section 200A of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Once any provision of the Act has been made applicable from a respective date, then the requirement of the statute is to apply the said provisions from the said date.

In respect of the issue raised before us, it is clear that the prescribed authority has been vested with the power to charge fees under section 234E of the Act only with regard to levy of fees by the substitution made by Finance (No.2) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Once the power has been given, under which any levy has to be imposed upon to 1930/PUN/2019 A. Y.: 2013-14 to 2015-16 Armeka Financial Consultants P.Ltd.,

While deciding the present bunch of appeals, the Revenue had placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’hle Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia Vs. Union of India (supra) wherein, the constitutional validity of section 234E of the Act was challenged. The Hon’ble High Court noted the fact that where the deductor was required to furnish periodical quarterly statements containing the details of deduction of tax made during the quarter, by the prescribed due date and the delay in furnishing such TDS returns would have cascading effect. It was further observed by the Hon’ble High Court that under the Income-tax Act, where there is an obligation on the Income-tax Department to process the income-tax returns within specified period from the date of filing, the returns could not be accurately processed of such person on whose behalf tax has been deducted i.e. deductee, until information of such deductions is furnished by the deductor within the prescribed time. Since the substantial number of deductors were not filing their TDS returns / statements within prescribed time frame, then it lead to an additional work burden upon the Department due to the fault of the deductor and in this light and to compensate for additional work burden forced upon the Department, fees was sought to be levied under section 234E of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that looking at this from this perspective, section 234E of the Act was not punitive in nature but a fee which was a fixed charge for the extra service which the Department had to provide due to the late filing of TDS statements. It was further held by the Hon’ble High Court that late filing of TDS returns / statements was regularized by payment of fees as set out in section 234E of the Act. Therefore, the findings of Hon’ble High Court were thus, that the fees sought to be levied under section 234E of the Act was not in the guise of tax sought to be levied on the deductor. The provisions of section 234E of the Act were held to be not onerous on the ground that section does not empower the Assessing Officer to condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal, so be it. The Hon’ble High Court further held that a person can always approach the court in extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution as the case may be. The Hon’ble High Court therefore, observed that simply because no remedy of appeal was provided for the provisions of section 234E of the Act, the same cannot be said to be onerous and section 234E of the Act was held to be constitutionally valid. The constitutional validity of provisions of section 234E of the Act has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Rajasthan

The perusal of Memo explaining the provision relating to insertion of clause (c) to section 200A of the Act clarifies the intention of Legislature in inserting the said provision. The provisions of section 234E of the Act were inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, under which the provision was made for levy of fees for late furnishing TDS / TCS statements. Before insertion of section 234E of the Act, the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 had inserted section 200A in the Act, under the said section, mechanism was provided for processing of TDS statements for determining the amount payable or refundable to the deductor, under which the provision was also made for charging of interest. However, since the provisions of section 234E of the Act were not on statute when the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 was passed, no provision was made for determining the fees payable under section 234E of the Act at the time of processing the TDS statements. So, when section 234E of the Act was introduced, it provided that the person was responsible for furnishing the TDS returns / statements within stipulated period and in default, fees would be charged on such person. The said section itself provided that fees shall not exceed the amount of tax deducted at source or collected at source. It was further provided that the person responsible for furnishing the statements shall pay the said amount while furnishing the statements under section 200(3) of the Act. However, power enabling the Assessing Officer to charge / levy the fee under section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS returns / statements filed by a person did not exist when section 234E of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012. The power to charge fees under the provisions of section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS statements, was dwelled upon by the Legislature by way of insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Accordingly, we hold that where the Assessing Officer has processed the TDS statements filed by the deductor, which admittedly, were filed belatedly but before insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act w.e.f. 01.06.2015, then in such cases, the Assessing Officer is not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS returns filed by the deductor.

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia Vs. Union of India (supra) has upheld the constitutional validity of said section introduced by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f 01.06.2015 but was not abreast of the applicability of the said section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing TDS statement filed by the deductor prior to 01.06.2015. In such scenario, we find no merit in the plea of learned C1T-DR that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia Vs. Union of India (supra) has laid down the proposition that fees under section 234E of the Act is chargeable in the case of present set of appeals, where the Assessing Officer had issued the intimation under section 200A of the Act prior to 01.06.2015.

Another aspect of the issue is whether the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f 01.06.2015 by way of insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act is clarificatory or is prospective in nature and is not applicable to the pending assessments. Undoubtedly, the provisions of section 234E of the Act were inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, under which the liability was imposed upon the deductor in such cases where TDS statements / returns were filed belatedly to pay the fees as per said section. However, in cases, where the assessee has failed to deposit the said fees, then in order to enable the Assessing Officer to collect the said fees chargeable under section 234E of the Act, it is incumbent upon the Legislature to provide mechanism for the Assessing Officer to charge and collect such fees. In the absence of enabling provisions, the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS statements, even if the said statements are belated, is not empowered to charge the fees under section 234E of the Act. The amendment was brought in by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and such an amendment where empowerment is given to the Assessing Officer to levy or charge the fees cannot be said to be clarificatory in nature and hence, applicable for pending assessments.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has explained the general principle concerning retrospectivity and have held that “of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. Idea behind the rule is that current law should govern current activities”. The Memo explaining the Finance Bill, 2015 very clearly also recognizes that and refers to the current provisions of sub-section (3) to section 200 of the Act, under which the deductor is to furnish TDS statements. However, as section 234E of the Act was inserted after insertion of section 200A in the Act, the existing provisions of section 200A of the Act did not provide for determination of fees payable under section 234E of the Act at the time of processing of TDS

We further find that in recent judgment dated 26.08.2016, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2663-2674/2015(T-IT) & Ors in Sri Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors has quashed the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act levying the fees for delayed filing the TDS statements under section 234E of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court notes that the Finance Act, 2015 had made amendments to section 200A of the Act enabling the Assessing Officer to make adjustments while levying fees under section 234E of the Act was applicable w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and has held that it has prospective effect. Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court held that “intimation raising demand prior to 01.06.2015 under section 200A of the Act levying section 234E of the Act late fees is not valid”. However, the Hon’ble High Court kept open the issue on constitutional validity of section 234E of the Act. We have already referred to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia Vs. Union of India (supra) in this regard, wherein the constitutional validity of section 234E of the Act has been upheld.

Accordingly, we hold that the amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act is procedural in nature and in view thereof, the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all these appeals does to 1930/PUN/2019 A. Y.: 2013-14 to 2015-16 Armeka Financial Consultants P.Ltd.,

Before parting we may refer to reliance placed upon by the learned CIT-DR on the ratio laid down by Chennai Bench of Tribunal in G. Indirani Vs. DCIT (supra) on another aspect wherein it was held that before 01.06.2015, whether the Assessing Officer had authority to pass a separate order under section 234E of the Act levying fees for delay in filing the TDS statements under section 200(3) of the Act; the Tribunal held ‘yes’ that the assessing authority had such power and after 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was within his limit to levy fees under section 234E of the Act even while processing the TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In view of the present set of facts, where the Assessing Officer had charged fees under section 234E of the Act while processing the statements under section 200A of the Act before 01.06.2015, there is no merit in the reliance placed upon by the learned CIT-DR on the said proposition laid down by the Chennai Bench of Tribunal and we dismiss the same.

Another reliance placed upon by the learned CIT-DR was in respect of amendment being retrospective or prospective and reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar (supra). However, in view of our decision in the paras hereinabove, where power is being enshrined upon the Assessing Officer to levy or charge while processing the TDS returns w.e.f. 01.06.2015, such provision cannot have retrospective effect as it would be detrimental to the case of tax payer. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court was considering the application of amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2010, under which certain relaxations were given to the application of said section and it was held that the same applies retrospectively to earlier years. However, in the present set of appeals, the issue is against the provision under which a new enabling power is being given to charge fees under section 234E of the Act while processing TDS returns / statements and such power is to be applied prospectively. In any case, the Parliament itself has recognized its operation to be prospective in nature while introducing clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act and hence, cannot be applied retrospectively. Similarly, reliance placed upon by the learned CIT-DR on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Govinddas Vs. ITO (supra) is misplaced because of the distinguishable facts and issues.

The issue arising in the present appeals is identical to the issue before the Tribunal in bunch o f appeals and where the amendment to section 200A(1) o f the Act is procedural in nature, then the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS statements / returns in the present set o f appeals fo r the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all the appeals does not stand and the demand raised by charging the fees under section 234E of the Act is not valid and the same is deleted. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, allowed.”