M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,BAKANER vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , SEHORE MANDI

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Bench:

Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank ITANo.222 to 328/Ind/2022 Page 2 of 15 AO” in short], the details of various branches and orders appealed against being as follows:

Sr. Amoun No. t of Late DATE OF TAN of Financial Form Name Qtr filing Appeal No CIT(A) Branch Year Type Levy ORDER u/s 234E 1 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10099/2020- ITA 222/Ind/2022 ALI BRANCH BPLJ01618B 2012-13 Q4 26Q 6600 21 9-Jul-22 2 CIT (A), Indore- 1/10080/2020- ITA 223/Ind/2022 ALI BRANCH BPLJ01618B 2013-14 Q2 26Q 1180 21 9-Jul-22 3 MAHIDPUR ROAD ITA 224/Ind/2022 BRANCH BPLI00679A 2013-14 Q4 26Q 2800 CIT (A), Ujjain/10036/2020-21 9-Jul-22 4 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10079/2020- ITA 225/Ind/2022 UMARKOT BRANCH BPLJ01647C 2014-15 Q4 26Q 3320 21 9-Jul-22 5 ITA 226/Ind/2022 BHABHRA BRANCH BPLJ01634D 2014-15 Q2 26Q 3000 CIT (A), Gwalior/10343/2020-21 9-Jul-22 6 CIT (A), Jabalpur- 1/10249/2020- ITA 227/Ind/2022 BHABHRA BRANCH BPLJ01634D 2014-15 Q3 26Q 1640 21 9-Jul-22 7 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10095/2020- ITA 228/Ind/2022 CHANDPUR BRANCH BPLJ01646B 2014-15 Q2 26Q 14498 21 9-Jul-22 8 RAJGARH NAKA CIT (A), Indore- 2/10088/2020- ITA 229/Ind/2022 JHABUA BRANCH BPLJ01645A 2014-15 Q4 26Q 3600 21 9-Jul-22 9 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10085/2020- ITA 230/Ind/2022 DEHRI BRANCH BPLJ01617A 2014-15 Q2 26Q 2140 21 9-Jul-22 10 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10063/2020- ITA 231/Ind/2022 LABRIYA BRANCH BPLJ01643F 2013-14 Q2 26Q 1100 21 9-Jul-22 11 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10064/2020- ITA 232/Ind/2022 SINGHANA BRANCH BPLJ01633C 2013-14 Q2 26Q 10400 21 9-Jul-22 12 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10104/2020- ITA 233/Ind/2022 TISGAON BRANCH BPLJ01613D 2012-13 Q4 26Q 6600 21 9-Jul-22 13 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10105/2020- ITA 234/Ind/2022 BHESOLA BRANCH BPLJ01619C 2012-13 Q4 26Q 8000 21 9-Jul-22 14 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10069/2020- ITA 235/Ind/2022 BHESOLA BRANCH BPLJ01619C 2014-15 Q2 26Q 2800 21 9-Jul-22 15 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10100/2020- ITA 236/Ind/2022 AJANDA BRANCH BPLJ01615F 2012-13 Q2 26Q 4171 21 9-Jul-22 16 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10106/2020- ITA 237/Ind/2022 SUSARI BRANCH BPLJ01611B 2012-13 Q4 26Q 23000 21 9-Jul-22 17 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10113/2020- ITA 238/Ind/2022 AMZERA BRANCH BPLJ01606D 2014-15 Q2 26Q 2400 21 9-Jul-22 18 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10065/2020- ITA 239/Ind/2022 PADIYAL BRANCH BPLJ01621E 2013-14 Q2 26Q 1090 21 9-Jul-22

Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank ITANo.222 to 328/Ind/2022 Page 3 of 15 19 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10096/2020- ITA 240/Ind/2022 PIPLIYA BRANCH BPLJ01609G 2012-13 Q3 26Q 6897 21 9-Jul-22 20 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10108/2020- ITA 241/Ind/2022 DHOLANA BRANCH BPLJ01600E 2012-13 Q2 26Q 7200 21 9-Jul-22 21 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10111/2020- ITA 242/Ind/2022 BAKANER BRANCH BPLJ01636F 2013-14 Q2 26Q 6000 21 9-Jul-22 22 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10076/2020- ITA 243/Ind/2022 BAKANER BRANCH BPLJ01636F 2014-15 Q4 26Q 2430 21 9-Jul-22 23 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10098/2020- ITA 244/Ind/2022 NISARPUR BRANCH BPLJ01605C 2012-13 Q3 26Q 1819 21 9-Jul-22 24 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10109/2020- ITA 245/Ind/2022 GHATABILLOD BRANCH BPLJ01616G 2013-14 Q3 26Q 2390 21 9-Jul-22 25 TRIMURTI NAGAR CIT (A), Indore- 2/10092/2020- ITA 246/Ind/2022 DHAR BRANCH BPLJ01622F 2012-13 Q4 26Q 8000 21 9-Jul-22 26 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10093/2020- ITA 247/Ind/2022 PITHAMPUR BRANCH BPLJ01610A 2012-13 Q4 26Q 7600 21 9-Jul-22 27 ITA 248/Ind/2022 JHABUA BRANCH BPLJ01572E 2012-13 Q4 26Q 26400 CIT (A), Ujjain/10040/2020-21 9-Jul-22 28 ITA 249/Ind/2022 JIBAT BRANCH BPLJ01644G 2013-14 Q3 26Q 3260 CIT (A), Ujjain/10042/2020-21 9-Jul-22 29 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10078/2020- ITA 250/Ind/2022 JIBAT BRANCH BPLJ01644G 2014-15 Q2 26Q 6800 21 9-Jul-22 30 CIT (A), Jabalpur- 1/10247/2020- ITA 251/Ind/2022 RAMBHAPUR BRANCH BPLJ01637G 2012-13 Q4 26Q 22800 21 9-Jul-22 31 CIT (A), Jabalpur- 1/10248/2020- ITA 252/Ind/2022 AMBUA BRANCH BPLJ01620D 2014-15 Q2 26Q 3000 21 9-Jul-22 32 ITA 253/Ind/2022 RANAPU BRANCH BPLJ01625B 2014-15 Q2 26Q 3000 CIT (A), Ujjain/10044/2020-21 9-Jul-22 33 ITA 254/Ind/2022 RANAPUR BRANCH BPLJ01625B 2014-15 Q4 26Q 3600 CIT (A), Ujjain/10038/2020-21 9-Jul-22 34 CIT (A), Jabalpur- 1/10253/2020- ITA 255/Ind/2022 KAKANWANI BRANCH BPLJ01602G 2012-13 Q4 26Q 12600 21 9-Jul-22 35 ITA 256/Ind/2022 BHABHRA BRANCH BPLJ01634D 2012-13 Q4 26Q 34418 CIT (A), Ujjain/10049/2020-21 9-Jul-22 36 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10080/2020- ITA 257/Ind/2022 DHAMNOD BRANCH BPLJ01666A 2014-15 Q4 26Q 24000 21 9-Jul-22 37 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10077/2020- ITA 258/Ind/2022 KALYANPURA BRANCH BPLJ01657F 2014-15 Q2 26Q 2670 21 9-Jul-22 38 CIT (A), Jabalpur- 1/10246/2020- ITA 259/Ind/2022 RAIPURIYA BRANCH BPLJ01656E 2012-13 Q4 26Q 21600 21 9-Jul-22 39 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10060/2020- ITA 260/Ind/2022 DHULET BRANCH BPLJ01658G 2012-13 Q4 26Q 12600 21 9-Jul-22 40 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10070/2020- ITA 261/Ind/2022 JEERABAD BRANCH BPLJ02303A 2014-15 Q2 26Q 3000 21 9-Jul-22 41 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10057/2020- ITA 262/Ind/2022 SEMALDA BRANCH BPLJ01668C 2012-13 Q4 26Q 6260 21 9-Jul-22 42 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10075/2020- ITA 263/Ind/2022 AHOD BRANCH BPLJ02324A 2014-15 Q2 26Q 1000 21 9-Jul-22 43 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10074/2020- ITA 264/Ind/2022 RAJOD BRANCH BPLJ01652A 2014-15 Q3 26Q 1000 21 9-Jul-22 44 ITA 265/Ind/2022 DIGTHAN BRANCH BPLJ02616F 2012-13 Q4 26Q 3254 9-Jul-22 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10061/2020-

Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank ITANo.222 to 328/Ind/2022 Page 4 of 15

21 45 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10066/2020- ITA 266/Ind/2022 TIRLA BRANCH BPLN03116B 2013-14 Q1 26Q 2531 21 9-Jul-22 46 ITA 267/Ind/2022 PADALYAMATA BRANCH BPLN02178B 2012-13 Q3 26Q 2280 CIT (A), Ujjain/10034/2020-21 9-Jul-22 47 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10086/2020- ITA 268/Ind/2022 RAJGARH BRANCH BPLJ01649E 2014-15 Q4 26Q 34600 21 9-Jul-22 48 ITA 269/Ind/2022 MEGHNAGAR BRANCH BPLJ01667B 2012-13 Q4 26Q 10200 CIT (A), Ujjain/10035/2020-21 9-Jul-22 49 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10082/2020- ITA 270/Ind/2022 SARANGI BRANCH BPLJ02612B 2012-13 Q4 26Q 5146 21 9-Jul-22 50 CIT (A), Indore- 1/10085/2020- ITA 271/Ind/2022 TEHKUKSHIDIST BRANCH BPLJ01618B 2012-13 Q2 26Q 7200 21 2-Aug-22 51 CIT (A), Indore- 1/10087/2020- ITA 272/Ind/2022 ALI BRANCH BPLJ01618B 2012-13 Q3 26Q 1404 21 2-Aug-22 52 CIT (A), Jabalpur- 1/10314/2020- ITA 273/Ind/2022 JHABUA BRANCH BPLJ01645A 2012-13 Q3 26Q 14942 21 2-Aug-22 53 CIT (A), Indore- 1/10088/2020- ITA 274/Ind/2022 JHABUA BRANCH BPLJ01645A 2012-13 Q4 26Q 45200 21 1-Aug-22 54 ITA 275/Ind/2022 JHABUA BRANCH BPLJ01645A 2013-14 Q1 26Q 18197 CIT (A), Ujjain/10055/2020-21 2-Aug-22 55 ITA 276/Ind/2022 JHABUA BRANCH BPLJ01645A 2013-14 Q4 26Q 4200 CIT (A), Ujjain/10052/2020-21 2-Aug-22 56 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10114/2020- ITA 277/Ind/2022 DEHRI BRANCH BPLJ01617A 2012-13 Q4 26Q 41800 21 2-Aug-22 57 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10134/2020- ITA 278/Ind/2022 DEHRI BRANCH BPLJ01617A 2013-14 Q3 26Q 2200 21 2-Aug-22 58 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10103/2020- ITA 279/Ind/2022 LABRIYA BRANCH BPLJ01643F 2012-13 Q4 26Q 6100 21 1-Aug-22 59 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10125/2020- ITA 280/Ind/2022 PADIYAL BRANCH BPLJ01621E 2012-13 Q3 26Q 2100 21 2-Aug-22 60 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10139/2020- ITA 281/Ind/2022 PADIYAL BRANCH BPLJ01621E 2012-13 Q4 26Q 10200 21 2-Aug-22 61 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10123/2020- ITA 282/Ind/2022 PIPLIYA BRANCH BPLJ01609G 2012-13 Q2 26Q 7800 21 2-Aug-22 62 ITA 283/Ind/2022 AMBADA BRANCH BPLJ01599D 2012-13 Q4 26Q 21000 NFAC/2012-13/10011359 2-Aug-22 63 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10118/2020- ITA 284/Ind/2022 BAKANER BRANCH BPLJ01636F 2012-13 Q3 26Q 5378 21 2-Aug-22 64 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10124/2020- ITA 285/Ind/2022 BAKANER BRANCH BPLJ01636F 2012-13 Q4 26Q 22600 21 2-Aug-22 65 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10102/2020- ITA 286/Ind/2022 BADNAWAR BRANCH BPLJ01603A 2012-13 Q2 26Q 7200 21 2-Aug-22 66 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10127/2020- ITA 287/Ind/2022 NISARPUR BRANCH BPLJ01605C 2012-13 Q2 26Q 7800 21 2-Aug-22 67 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10120/2020- ITA 288/Ind/2022 GHATABILLOD BRANCH BPLJ01616G 2012-13 Q3 26Q 7951 21 2-Aug-22 68 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10135/2020- ITA 289/Ind/2022 GHATABILLOD BRANCH BPLJ01616G 2013-14 Q2 26Q 10400 21 2-Aug-22 69 TRIMURTI NAGAR CIT (A), Indore- 2/10115/2020- ITA 290/Ind/2022 BRANCH BPLJ01622F 2012-13 Q2 26Q 22041 21 1-Aug-22

Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank ITANo.222 to 328/Ind/2022 Page 5 of 15 70 TRIMURTI NAGAR CIT (A), Indore- 2/10128/2020- ITA 291/Ind/2022 BRANCH BPLJ01622F 2012-13 Q3 26Q 4417 21 1-Aug-22 71 TRIMURTI NAGAR ITA 292/Ind/2022 BRANCH BPLJ01622F 2013-14 Q3 26Q 3200 NFAC/2013-14/10011382 2-Aug-22 72 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10117/2020- ITA 293/Ind/2022 PITHAMPUR BRANCH BPLJ01610A 2012-13 Q2 26Q 7800 21 2-Aug-22 73 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10121/2020- ITA 294/Ind/2022 PITHAMPUR BRANCH BPLJ01610A 2012-13 Q3 26Q 4299 21 2-Aug-22 74 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10140/2020- ITA 295/Ind/2022 PITHAMPUR BRANCH BPLJ01610A 2013-14 Q2 26Q 2420 21 2-Aug-22 75 ITA 296/Ind/2022 JHABUA BRANCH BPLJ01572E 2012-13 Q2 26Q 68800 CIT (A), Ujjain/10047/2020-21 1-Aug-22 76 ITA 297/Ind/2022 JIBAT BRANCH BPLJ01644G 2012-13 Q2 26Q 7200 NFAC/2012-13/10011358 2-Aug-22 77 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10130/2020- ITA 298/Ind/2022 JIBAT BRANCH BPLJ01644G 2012-13 Q3 26Q 9269 21 2-Aug-22 78 ITA 299/Ind/2022 JIBAT BRANCH BPLJ01644G 2012-13 Q4 26Q 6600 CIT (A), Ujjain/10046/2020-21 2-Aug-22 79 ITA 300/Ind/2022 JIBAT BRANCH BPLJ01644G 2013-14 Q2 26Q 7800 CIT (A), Ujjain/10050/2020-21 2-Aug-22 80 ITA 301/Ind/2022 UMARKOT BRANCH BPLJ01647C 2013-14 Q4 26Q 1010 CIT (A), Ujjain/10043/2020-21 1-Aug-22 81 ITA 302/Ind/2022 RANAPUR BRANCH BPLJ01625B 2012-13 Q4 26Q 8000 CIT (A), Ujjain/10048/2020-21 2-Aug-22 82 ITA 303/Ind/2022 RANAPUR BRANCH BPLJ01625B 2013-14 Q3 26Q 6600 CIT (A), Ujjain/10051/2020-21 2-Aug-22 83 ITA 304/Ind/2022 BHABHRA BRANCH BPLJ01634D 2013-14 Q4 26Q 43650 CIT (A), Ujjain/10054/2020-21 2-Aug-22 84 ITA 305/Ind/2022 BHABHRA BRANCH BPLJ01634D 2014-15 Q1 26Q 7080 CIT (A), Ujjain/10056/2020-21 2-Aug-22 85 ITA 306/Ind/2022 CHANDPUR BRANCH BPLJ01646B 2014-15 Q4 26Q 3600 CIT (A), Ujjain/10058/2020-21 2-Aug-22 86 ITA 307/Ind/2022 PETLAWAD BRANCH BPLJ01639B 2012-13 Q3 26Q 1664 CIT (A), Ujjain/10041/2020-21 2-Aug-22 87 ITA 308/Ind/2022 PETLAWAD BRANCH BPLJ01639B 2014-15 Q3 26Q 3200 NFAC/2014-15/10011383 2-Aug-22 88 ITA 309/Ind/2022 JHABUA BRANCH BPLJ01645A 2012-13 Q2 26Q 87400 CIT (A), Ujjain/10057/2020-21 2-Aug-22 89 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10094/2020- ITA 310/Ind/2022 ALIRAJPUR BRANCH BPLJ01653B 2012-13 Q4 26Q 6600 21 1-Aug-22 90 ITA 311/Ind/2022 DHAR BRANCH BPLN03152C 2013-14 Q3 26Q 1310 NFAC/2013-14/10011357 2-Aug-22 91 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10107/2020- ITA 312/Ind/2022 SEMALDA BRANCH BPLJ01668C 2012-13 Q2 26Q 2305 21 1-Aug-22 92 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10101/2020- ITA 313/Ind/2022 AHOD BRANCH BPLJ02324A 2012-13 Q4 26Q 6600 21 2-Aug-22 93 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10119/2020- ITA 314/Ind/2022 DHAMNOD BRANCH BPLJ01666A 2012-13 Q2 26Q 7200 21 1-Aug-22 94 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10122/2020- ITA 315/Ind/2022 DHAMNOD BRANCH BPLJ01666A 2012-13 Q4 26Q 5800 21 1-Aug-22 95 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10110/2020- ITA 316/Ind/2022 DHAMNOD BRANCH BPLJ01666A 2013-14 Q4 26Q 8000 21 1-Aug-22 96 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10126/2020- ITA 317/Ind/2022 RAJOD BRANCH BPLJ01652A 2012-13 Q2 26Q 2093 21 1-Aug-22 97 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10097/2020- ITA 318/Ind/2022 RAJOD BRANCH BPLJ01652A 2012-13 Q4 26Q 10200 21 1-Aug-22 98 ITA 319/Ind/2022 KALYANPURA BRANCH BPLJ01657F 2012-13 Q4 26Q 10200 CIT (A), Ujjain/10039/2020-21 1-Aug-22 99 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10132/2020- ITA 320/Ind/2022 RAJGARH BRANCH BPLJ01649E 2012-13 Q2 26Q 7800 21 1-Aug-22

Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank ITANo.222 to 328/Ind/2022 Page 6 of 15 100 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10131/2020- ITA 321/Ind/2022 RAJGARH BRANCH BPLJ01649E 2012-13 Q4 26Q 10200 21 1-Aug-22 101 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10137/2020- ITA 322/Ind/2022 RAJGARH BRANCH BPLJ01649E 2013-14 Q3 26Q 6600 21 1-Aug-22 102 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10136/2020- ITA 323/Ind/2022 RAJGARH BRANCH BPLJ01649E 2013-14 Q4 26Q 6800 21 1-Aug-22 103 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10112/2020- ITA 324/Ind/2022 RAJGARH BRANCH BPLJ01649E 2014-15 Q2 26Q 77000 21 1-Aug-22 104 ITA 325/Ind/2022 BOLASA BRANCH BPLJ01681B 2012-13 Q4 26Q 14400 NFAC/2012-13/10011364 2-Aug-22 105 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10141/2020- ITA 326/Ind/2022 KHAWASA BRANCH BPLJ02637F 2014-15 Q2 26Q 3000 21 2-Aug-22 106 ITA 327/Ind/2022 SEHORE MANDI BRANCH BPLN02804E 2012-13 Q2 26Q 3260 NFAC/2012-13/10011356 2-Aug-22 107 ITA 328/Ind/2022 SEHORE MANDI BRANCH BPLN02804E 2013-14 Q2 26Q 3567 NFAC/2013-14/10011355 2-Aug-22 Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and case records perused.

3. Precisely stated the facts leading to these appeals before us are such that that the assessees have filed statutory returns of TDS in Form No. 26Q of various quarters of the financial years as mentioned in the details given in the Table above, which were processed by Ld. AO who observed that the returns were filed belatedly beyond the time-limit prescribed in section 200(3) of the act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO charged late-fee u/s 234E of the act, of varying amounts as per period of delay committed by assessees, in the intimations issued u/s 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Against such intimations u/s 200A, the assessees submitted applications for rectification u/s 154 of the Act, but, however the Ld. AO rejected those rectification- applications. Being aggrieved by orders of rectification, the assessees filed appeals to Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. Now the assessees have come in these appeals before us assailing the orders of Ld. CIT(A).

Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank ITANo.222 to 328/Ind/2022 Page 7 of 15

GROUND NO 1: THE APPELLANT BANK PLEADS THAT NON- CONSIDERATION OF A DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL COURT (IN THIS CASE HON'BLE INDORE ITAT) COULD BE SAID TO BE A "Mistake APPARENT FROM THE RECORD": The Appellant Bank pleads that the Id. CIT(A) has erred by wrong appreciating the facts and not considered that Late Filing Levy is "Mistake apparent from Record". The appellant Bank pleads that our appeal is always in respect of Late filing Levy of TDS under sec 234E which is getting shown in Intimation Order under sec 154 generated after filing TDS Corrections. We therefore Request Hon'ble ITAT to consider Late Filing Levy as "Mistake apparent from Record" and consider the appeal filed against intimation order generated under sec 154 after filing TDS Corrections as valid and set aside the Order of Ld. CIT(A) and set aside the demand of Late filing fees under sec 234Efor TDS statement filed before 01.06.2015.

GROUND NO 2: Insertion of clause (c) to section 200a(1) of the it act. Specifically w.e.f.1.06.2015 The Id. CIT(A) has erred and not considered that TDS-CPC has been empowered to make claim and generate intimation u/s 200A for late fees (u/s 234E) for all the statements filed on or after 01 Jun-2015 and not before. Hence, The Appellant pleads that intimations against all statement filed before 01-Jun-2015 should be quashed.

GROUND NO.3: Prospective effect w.e.f. 01-Jun-2015 of Section 200A(1 Hc) read with Section 234E The Id. CIT (A) has erred and not considered that since the appeal under consideration is in respect to Demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E for TDS returns filed pertaining to period prior to 01.06.2015, the impunged notices for late filing levy shall be quashed considering the amendment in section 200A is effective only from 01-06-2015.

GROUND NO 4: Hon'ble High Court Case Law pronouncing Judgement in Assessee's favour in similar cases (along with Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement in case of cleayage of opinion between different High Courts) 1.Hon'ble Karnataka high court and Hon'ble Kerala high court decision supports the above grounds and both high courts have held that the amendment in section 200A is effective only from 01-06- 2015 and therefore late filing fee u/s 234E cannot be levied for the Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank ITANo.222 to 328/Ind/2022 Page 8 of 15 period prior to 1-6-2015. Also, Hon'ble Gujrat High Court have decided the matter in favour of Department. 1.The Id. CIT (A) has erred and not considered the landmark judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of CIT vs. Vegetable Products ltd. 88 ITR 192(SC) & CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) wherein it has been decided by the Apex Court that if there is a cleavage of opinion between different Courts on an issue, in absence of jurisdictional court judgement the one in favour of the assesse needs to be followed. The Appellant therefore pleads that it is pertinent to go with Apex Court landmark judgements and an order in favour of assessee be passed.

GROUND NO 5: ITAT Case Law Pronouncing Judgement in Assesses' favour in similar cases: The Id. CIT (A) erred and not considered that There are numerous ITAT case laws, wherein it is clearly decided by the bench that intimation for fees for late filing of TDS statement filed u/s 234E before01-Jul- 2015 is illegal, incorrect and invalid. " GROUND No. 1:

5. In this Ground, the assessees have claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing first-appeals by wrongly observing that there was no “apparent mistake” in the intimations u/s 200A and the rejection of rectification-applications by Ld. AO was in order.

6. Facts qua this Ground are such that while passing intimations u/s 200A of the Act, the Ld. AO levied late fee u/s 234E. Although the assessee did not file direct appeals against the intimations u/s 200A, applications seeking rectification u/s 154 of the Act were filed to Ld. AO for redressal of grievance arising due to illegal levy of late-fee. However, the Ld. AO rejected those applications filed by assessees. Being aggrieved by rejection, the assessees filed appeals to Ld. CIT(A) and technically such appeal happened to be against the order of rectification u/s 154 and not against the original intimations u/s 200A of the act. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of assessees by concluding thus in Para No. 6.7 of his order:

Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank ITANo.222 to 328/Ind/2022 Page 9 of 15

“6.7 Based on the detailed discussion above, I am of the view that the levy of late filing fee u/s 234E is NOT a mistake apparent from record. Therefore the rectification order u/s 154 rightly rejected the appellant’s contention of deletion of Levy of penalty u/s 234E, since a rectification order u/s 154 is limited to deal with issues which are mistake apparent from record. Therefore the rejection of the rectification application by the CPC-TDS was in order. I am further of the view that the grounds raised in the present appeals are actually relating to the MERITS of levying of penalty u/s 234E. Therefore such grounds of grounds of appeal do not emanate from the order u/s 154, since Penalty u/s 234E was levied vide order u/s 200A, and not vide the order u/s 154. The arguments of the appellant are therefore rejected. The appellant perhaps wants the undersigned to characterize this appeal to be against the original intimation u/s 200A, and not against the rectification order u/s 154. It is however, clarified that I have restricted myself to the issue of mistake apparent from record and am not going into the merits of the levy of late fee u/s 234E. In view of the detailed discussion above, the grounds raised in the present appeal are dismissed.

7. Before us, the Ld. AR appearing on behalf of assessees submitted that the delays in filing quarterly-returns of TDS in Form No. 26Q was for the period prior to 01.06.2015 for which there was no provision in section 200A for levy of late-fee thereby rendering the late-fee charged in intimations issued u/s 200A as illegal and such a proposition is upheld by various courts including jurisdictional Bench of ITAT, Indore itself. Ld. AR submitted that the levy of late-fee illegally upon the assessee, is certainly a “mistake apparent on record” and therefore the assessee were justified in filing rectification-applications u/s 154 to the Ld. AO. Therefore, according to Ld. AR, the Ld. CIT(A) was neither justified in concluding that there was no apparent mistake nor justified in dismissing the appeals of assessees.

8. Per contra, Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of Ld. CIT(A) and argued that the assessees have not filed first-appeals against the intimations u/s 200A, which necessarily should have been filed. According to Ld. DR,

Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank ITANo.222 to 328/Ind/2022 Page 10 of 15 the assessees filed rectification-applications u/s 154 against the intimations u/s 200A and thereafter carried the matter to Ld. CIT(A) after getting rejection of rectification-applications. The Ld. DR submitted that this route adopted by the assessees was not permissible in the issue involved and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing appeals of assessees on this very footing. With these submissions, the Ld. DR prayed to uphold the orders of Ld. CIT(A).

Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank ITANo.222 to 328/Ind/2022 Page 11 of 15

6.1 Of course, it is a case in point that the assessee did not file any appeal against the intimations passed us 143(1) of the Act and the Ld. Sr. DR is right to the extent that the assessee cannot be given relief for that reason. However, it is also a settled law that the assessee cannot be taxed on an amount on which tax is not legally imposable. Although, the assessee might have chosen a wrong channel for redressal of his grievance, all the same, it is incumbent upon the Tax authorities to burden the assessee only with correct amount of tax and not to unjustly benefit at the cost of tax payer. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it expedient to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing officer with a direction to pass appropriate orders deleting the addition / disallowance after duly considering the settled judicial position in this regard, which have been decided in the three cases as enumerated above in Para 5.

GROUND No. 2 to 5:

12. Ld. AR submitted that in the present appeals, the late-fee u/s 234E has been levied for the period before 01.06.2015 when there was no power in section 200A to levy such late-fee, therefore the late-fee charged by Ld. AO is without authority of law and deserves to be quashed. Ld. AR submitted that the section 200A(1) was amended w.e.f. 01.06.2015 by inserting clause (c) therein and it is only thereafter the authorities were enabled to charge late- fee in the intimations u/s 200A. Therefore, it is very much clear that the authorities did not have any power to charge late-fee in respect of returns related to the period prior to 01.06.2015. In support of this proposition, Ld. AR relied upon certain decisions of different Courts / Benches of ITAT including the decisions of ITAT, Indore Bench itself in ITA Nos.

Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank ITANo.222 to 328/Ind/2022 Page 12 of 15 510/Ind/2019 in case of M/s. Keshav Industries Pvt. Ltd. & to 508/Ind/2019 Mr. Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, order dated 14.07.2020. The relevant paras of decision are reproduced below:

“10. We also observe that the Co-ordinate Bench Agra in the case of Sudershan Goyal Vs DCIT (TDS) order dated 09.04.2018 considering the similar issue deciding in favour of the assessee observed as follows:- “The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether late filing fee u/s 234E of the IT Act has rightly been charged in the intimation dated 10.11.2013 issued u/s 200A of the Act while processing the TDS returns/statement, the enabling clause (c) having been inserted in the section w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Before 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E. As such, as per the assessee, in respect of TDS statement filed fora period prior to 01.06.2015, no late fee could be levied in the intimation issued u/s 200A of the Act.

4. We do not find the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) to be correct in law. As against 'Rajesh Kaurani' (supra), 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs.UOI', 73 Taxmann.com 252 (Ker), as also admitted by the ld. CIT(A) himself, decides the issue in favour of the assessee. The only objection of the ld. CIT(A) is that this decision and others to the same effect have been taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court while passing 'Rajesh Kaurani' (supra). However, while observing so, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to take into consideration the settled law that where there is a cleavage of opinion between different High Courts on an issue, the one in favour of the assessee needs to be followed. It has so been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.', 88 ITR 192 (SC). It is also not a case where the decision against the assessee has been rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court qua the assessee.

Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank ITANo.222 to 328/Ind/2022 Page 13 of 15

22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, & S.A. No. 01/Agra/2018 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.

11. We, therefore respectfully following above decisions are of the opinion that in the given set of facts of the instant appeals wherein fee u/s 234E of the Act was levied in the statements processed u/s 200A of the Act before 01.06.2015 i.e. before the amendment brought into effect from 01.06.2015 in section 200A of the Act thereby enabling the revenue authorities to raise demand in respect of levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of late fees u/s 234E of the Act by the assessing officer. Accordingly findings of Ld. CIT(A) in all these 10 appeals are reversed as we have recently taken a considered view against the revenue on earlier orders of Ld. CIT(A) wherein the identical orders by respective CIT(A) were passed and accordingly the revenue is directed to delete the levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act in all these 10 cases. Thus, common issue raised in these bunch of appeals is decided in favour of the assessee(s).

Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank ITANo.222 to 328/Ind/2022 Page 14 of 15

Order pronounced in open court on 11/11/2022.