ITA Nos. 22 to 27/Pat/2014. IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH, PATNA. BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. (S.M.C.) I.T.A. Nos. 22 & 23/PAT/2014. Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10. Principal, Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, H.D. Jain College, Vs. TDS Circle, Patna. Arrah. Appellant. Respondent. I.T.A. Nos. 24 & 25/PAT/2014. Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10. Registrar, Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, V.K.S. University Vs. TDS Circle, Patna. Arrah. Appellant. Respondent. I.T.A. Nos. 26 & 27/PAT/2014. Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10. Principal, Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, M.M. Mahila College, Vs. TDS Circle, Patna. Arrah. Appellant. Respondent. Appellant by : Shri Shalin Kumar. Respondent by : Shri R.K. Mishra. Date of Hearing : 05-08-2016 Date of Pronouncement : 20th Sept., 2016 ORDER These appeals by three assessees are directed against common order of CIT(Appeals) for concerned assessment years. common issue raised read as under : 2 ITA Nos. 22 to 27/Pat/2014. 1. For that order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals [II], Patna is defective both in law and facts. 2. For that learned CIT, Appeal [II], Patna has erred to treat assessee as assessee in default U/S 201 for not deducting tax on claim of deduction by employees U/S 80 DD and 80 U. 3. For that learned CIT, Appeal [II], Patna has erred to consider that Section 192 does not delegate power of Assessing Officer to assessee to adjudicate claim of employee rather auhorized to deduct tax on computation of estimated income. After obtaining computation of estimated income from employee deductor assessee acted upon advice of his Legal Advisor with bona fide belief that employees claiming deduction U/S 80 DD and 80 U much before amended provision of said section w.e.f. 01.04.2004 need not to submit certificate from Medical authority. 4. For that learned CIT, Appeal [II], Patna has erred to consider that advice of Legal Advisor made assessee to believe that employees who were claiming deduction u/s 80 DD and 80 U much before 01.04.2004 could also avail benefit of preamended provisions of section 80 DD and 80 U assessee was not mala fide rather bona fide. And any action of assessee based upon his bona fide belief cannot make him assessee in default [ CIT & Anr vs. ITC Ltd. (2013) 263 CTR (All) 241, CIT & Anr. Vs. Larsen & Tubro Ltd. (2009) 221 CTR (SC) 620, CIT & Anr vs. ITI Ltd. (2009) 221 (SC) 619, CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd. (2000) 159 CTR (Del) 243, ITO vs. Giirat Narmada Valliev Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (2000) 163 CTR (Guj) 554, CIT vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (2000) 164 (Guj) 129]. 5. For that learned CIT, Appeal [II], Patna has erred to consider that It is settled rule of construction that every statue is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation . Any amendment which has not been given retrospective effect by legislature cannot be construed as retrospective [Bharati Shipyard Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ITAT Mumbai B Special Bench, (2011) 141 TTJ (Mumbai) (SB) 129, Policy Network (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, (2012) 146 TTJ (Del) 464, CIT vs. Pooshya Export (P) Ltd. vs. Deputy CIT (2009) 120 TTJ (Del) (SB) 577, Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 148 TTJ (Mumbai) (SB) 393]. 3 ITA Nos. 22 to 27/Pat/2014. 6. For that learned CIT, Appeal [II], Patna has erred to consider that substituted provisions of section 80 DD and 80 U never intends to produce copy of certificate issued by Medical Authority from those employees too who have already been claimed deduction u/s 80DD and 80U much before 01.04.2004. This very intention of newly substituted provision is very much clear from absence of any such clause of asking for certificate issued by Medical Authority. If intention of legislature was to ask for certificate issued by medical authority from those assessee too who have already been claiming Deduction u/s 80DD and 80U much before effective date of new substitution i.e. 01.04.2004 it would have been mentioned in substituted provision. 7. For that learned CIT, Appeal [II], Patna talks on intention of legislature but he himself failed to consider that intention of legislature is clearly expressed through language of provisions of section and no where language of substituted section of 80DD and 80U ever express its intention to enact itself with retrospective effect. learned CIT failed also to consider that sentence structure of said sections are in Present Tense. 8. For that learned CIT, Appeal [II], Patna further failed to go through Report of Task Force on Direct Taxes [ Kelkar Committee] submitted to Government on 27.1.2002 which clearly expressed its intention to continue benefit under section 80DD and 80U, learned CIT again erred not to consider Budget speech for Budget 2003-04 by Minister of Finance and Finance Bill 2003 which moves further with recommendations of Task Force by widening scope of section 80DD and 80U on fundamental principle of equal opportunities, protection of rights and all round development of persons with disability . learned CIT again failed to consider that pre amended 80DD and 80U provided benefit only to persons with permanent disability while post amended 80DD and 80U, after going by intentions of TGask Force, Budget Speech of Minister of Finance and Finance Bill 2003, began to provide benefit not only to persons with permanent disability but also to persons with temporary disability. learned CIT failed to consider that amendment in section 80DD 4 ITA Nos. 22 to 27/Pat/2014. and 80U was nothing but exercise in widen benefit of said sections. 9. For that learned CIT, Appeal [II], Patna has erred to consider that e-filing or paper filing of quarterly return in Form 24 Q was nothing but mode of filing while judgment of Honourable Patna High Court was meant for duty of filing return and performing that duty of filing return Honourable Patna High Court held that return filed through UPC is valid return [ CIT vs. Kalyani Selection Kargallia Colliery (1984) 146 ITR 577 (Pat) 1. For Patna High Court filing of return was more important. learned CIT failed to consider that return sent through UPC was also meant to file return electronically and not manually. said UPC was addressed to NSDL and not to local office of Income Tax. 2. In all these cases, survey was conducted u/s 133A of Act. Common observation of AO in case of assessees in order u/s 201(1)(1A) is as under : On examination of TDS certificate in form No. 16 issued for A.Y. 2008-09, it was found that Deduction u/s 80DD, 80F & 80U were wrongly allowed by D.D.O. So far as Deduction u/s 80DD & 80U are concerned, copy of Medical Certificates were not found in prescribed form. Most of persons claimed such deduction were receiving it on consultant sheet of Doctor. On other hand, claim of deduction u/s 80G by employees are also not acceptable as donations were not made to trust/institution as specified in section 80G of Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, above deduction should have not been allowed by DDO while computing TDS on employees. In view of above stated facts, there are short deduction of tax has been made in case of some employees. Thereafter AO made calculation and computed amount of short deduction and interest u/s 201(1A). 3. Upon assessee s appeal, learned CIT(Appeals) considered submissions and held as under : 5 ITA Nos. 22 to 27/Pat/2014. 3.1 I have considered facts of case. For reference, section 80U as it existed before amendment w.e. . 01.04.2004 is reproduced as under.- Deduction in case of permanent physical disability (including blindness). 80U. In computing total income of individual, being resident, who, at end of previous year, is sufferingfrom permanent physical disability (including blindness) or is subject to mental retardation, being permanent physical disability or mental retardation specified in rules made in this behalf by Board, which is certified by physician, surgeon, oculist or.a psychiatrist, as case may be, working in Government hospital, and which has effect of reducing considerably such individual's capacity for normal work or engaging in gainful employment or occupation, there shall be allowed-a deduction of sum of {forty J thousand rupees: Provided that such individual produces aforesaid certificate before -the Assessing Officer in respect of first assessment year for which he claims deduction under this section: . Provided further that requirement of producing aforesaid certificate from physician, . surgeon, oculist or psychiatrist, as case may be, working in Government hospital shall " not apply to individual who has already produced certificate before Assessing Officer under provisions of this section as they stood immediately before 1st day of April, 1992. Explanation.-For purposes of this section. expression "Government hospital" shall 'have meaning assigned to it in Explanation to section 80DD.] 3.:2The AI R of appellants has relied heavily on decision of HIgh Court of Gujarat in case of Snehlata Chandrakant Chalishazar V. Thanvi reported In [:2000] 108 TAXMAN 171. For reference, catch note of same is being reproduced hereunder: Section 80U of Income-tax Ct 1961 Deductions - - Totally blind or physically handicapped persons - Assessment years 1991-92 to 1995-96 - whether surgeon rendering honorary service at Government hospital is as much surgeon working on regular basis in Government hospital under regular rules of employment and. therefore. certificate given by him could not De rejected merely because he was working as honorary surgeon and not as paid employee - Held, yes - Whether Assessing Officer is not empowered with authority to adjudicate upon correctness of certificate of doctor if certificate is found genuine and coming from source required under statute - Held, yes - whether, Where genuineness of certificate was not in doubt inasmuch as on very same certificate deduction under section 80U had been allowed for subsequent years. Commissioner was not justified in rejecting certificate for years concerned - Held, yes 6 ITA Nos. 22 to 27/Pat/2014. 3.3 AIR pointed out that it is mentioned In last para of this judgment that certificate once obtained by assessee enured for all Subsequent years. AS can be seen from above provisions of section 80U, it is clearly mentioned in section itself as it existed prior to amendment by Finance Act, :2003 that requirement of producing aforesaid certificate shall not apply to individual who has already produced certificate before AO under provisions of this section as they stood immediately before first day of April, 1992. above case pertains to A. Y. 1991-92 to 95-96. Alter amendment by Finance Act, 2003 w.e.t. 01.04.2004, section 80U reads as under:- 7 ITA Nos. 22 to 27/Pat/2014. 80U.( 1} In computing total income ofj individuali, being resident, who, at any time during previous year, is certified by medical authority to be person with disability, there shall be allow ed deduction of sum of fifty thousand rupees: Provided that where such individual is person with severe disability, provisions of this sub- section shall have effect as if for words "fifty thousand rupees". words "seventy-five thousand rupees had been substituted. (2) Every individual claiming deduction under this section shall furnish copy of certificate issued by medical authority in form and manner, as may be prescribed, along with return of income under section 139, in respect of (the assessment year for which deduction is claimed: Provided that where condition of disability requires reassessment of its extent after period stipulated in aforesaid certificate, no deduction under this section shall be allowed for any assessment year relating to any previous year beginning after expiry of previous year during which aforesaid certificate of disability had expired, unless new certificate is obtained from medical authority in form and manner, as may be prescribed, and copy thereof is furnished along with return of Income under section 139.. Explanation. -For purposes of this section,- (a) disability : Shall have meaning assigned to it t In clause ( 1) o section 2 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996); (b) medical authority means medical authority as referred to in clause ( p) of section 2 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996) . ( c) "person with disability" means person referred to in clause (t) of section 2 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Particinationt Act. 1995 (J of 1996>.' ( d) "person wtith severe disability means person with eighty per cent or more of one or more disabilities, as referred to in sub-section (4) of section 56 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996). 3.4 Thus, it can be seen that old section has been removed altogether and has been substituted by new section. It IS not mere amendment at existing section but altogether substitution of old section by new section. .Therefore, except number 800 , nothing 0f old section has remained. Same is case with section 80DD. By no stretch of imagination, it can be accepted that certificate obtained under old section will still entitle person to claim deduction under new section. From sub-section (2) as above, it is clear that for claiming deduction under this section, copy of certificate issued by medical authority is required to be furnished along . 8 ITA Nos. 22 to 27/Pat/2014. with return of income in respect of assessment year for which deduction is claimed. As per proviso to this sub-section, re- assessment: or such certificate issued by such medical authority is required to be done if so prescribed in such certificate after period specified. As per Explanatory Notes to Finance Act, 2003 also, such certificate is required to be produced along with return of income. relevant part is being reproduced as under:- 41.3 For claiming deduction, assessee is required to furnish copy of certificate issued by medical authority under Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 along with return or Income filed under section 139(1). Where condition of disability requires reassessment, fresh certificate from medical authority shall have to be obtained after expiry of period mentioned on original certificate in order to continue claiming deduction. 3.5 Therefore, I am of considered opinion that the. provisions of sections 80DD as 80U as they exist after 01.04.2004 are required to be followed for claiming deduction under these sections w.e.r. assessment year 2004-05 and thereafter, i.e. certificate of disability is required to be taken from prescribed medical authority. It intention of legislature was to continue allowing deduction to those assessees already claiming it on basis of old certificates, it would have been so mentioned as It was mentioned In section 80U as above when it was amended w.e.f. 01.04.1992. As far as reference to re-assessment of disability IS concerned, relevant proviso IS part of sub-section (2) of section 8000 w.e.f. 01.04.2004 and such re- assessment is in respect of certificate issued by medical authority as above and reference of AIR to imply that same refers to re- assessment of certificate issued under old provisions IS incorrect. Another claim of AIR is that once any benefit is allowed by Act, it should continue in all assessment years. Needless to say that such argument. has been made only to be rejected. Parliament in its own wisdom, introduces from time to time various exemptions and deductions and some existing exemptions and deductions are withdrawn. For example, w.e.f. 01.04.1997, section 80CCC was ---_ .. ..-._. -- inserted which provided for deduction of Rs. 10,000/- over and above deduction allowable under section 80 C in respect or pension I plans undertaken. However, later on, this deduction was withdrawn or merged in overall deduction allowable under section 80D. Therefore, if assessee has taken pension plan for 25 years in assessment year 1997-98, he cannot claim that deduction of Rs. 10,00o/- over and above deduction Claimable under section 80C of Income Tax Act, 1961 should be allowed for all next 25 years. There are several other examples where deduction allowable under various sections has been withdrawn and new deductions have been introduced. E.g. deduction under section 80L which remained In force for long time was withdrawn and after several years, new section 80TTA has been introduced. Therefore, I am of considered opinion that respective DDOs fell in error in allowing deductions 9 ITA Nos. 22 to 27/Pat/2014. under section 80DD and 80U for assessment year 2004-05 and later assessment years on basis of old certificates. Accordingly, action of AO in this regard is upheld. 4. Against above order, assessee is in appeal before ITAT. 5. I have heard both counsel and perused records. Learned counsel of assessee has given following submissions. 1. For that order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal [II], Patna is defective both in law and facts. 2. For that learned CIT Appeal[II], Patna has erred in treaing assessee as assessee in default u/s 201 for not deducting tax on claim of deduction by employees u/s 80DD and 80U. 3. For that Section 192 states (1) Any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under head Salaries shall, at time of payment, deduct income- tax on amount payable at average rate of income-tax computed on basis of rates in force for financial year in which payment is made on estimated income of assessee under his head for that financial year. 4. For that simple and plain reading of section 192 makes it crystal clear that it does not delegate power of Assessing Officer to assessee to assess or adjudicate claim of employee or to sit in judgment which can be done only by Assessing Officer. Rather Act gives responsibility to deduct tax on computation of estimated income. 5. For that to deduct tax dedutror assessee asks for computation of estimated income from employee under declaration. By using clause income-tax computed section puts onus not on employer but on he employee to compute tax on his estimated income and submit it to his/her employer. In such situation of self declaration of computation of estimated income from employee employer will naturally believe declaration of his employee. Even Act does not authorize 10 ITA Nos. 22 to 27/Pat/2014. him to disbelieve his employees. His satisfaction comes from his bona fide belief upon genuineness of declaration of his employee. But in present case assessee for his satisfaction and in order to perform his duty as drawing and disbursing officer he asked for advice from his Legal Advisor. When Legal Advisor submitted his advice to assessee he acted with his bona fide belief that employees claiming deduction u/s 80DD and 80U much more before amendment took place i.e. 01.04.2004 need not to submit Certificate from Medical Authority. As per legal advice all employee who have been claiming deduction u/s 80DD and 80U before 01.04.2004 need not to submit certificate from Medial Authority but those employee who are claiming deduction u/s 80DD and 80U after 01.04.2004 or who are going to claim for first time after 01.04.2004 need to submit Certificate from Medical Authority, according to advice. In other words, assessee s satisfaction comes from his bona fide belief based on advice of his legal advisor. Legal Advisor not gives his legal opinion but also provide declaration form based on his advice. 6. For that learned CIT(Appeals) has failed to understand it is advice of legal advisor that made assessee to believe that employees who were claiming deduction u/s 80DD and 80U much before 01.04.2004 could also avail benefit of pre amended provisions of sections 80DD and 80U. conduct of assessee based upon his bona fide belief cannot make him assessee in default [ CIT & Anr vs. ITC Ltd. (2013) 263 CTR (All) 241, CIT & Anr. Vs. Larsen & Tubro Ltd. (2009) 221 CTR (SC) 620, CIT & Anr vs. ITI Ltd. (2009) 221 (SC) 619, CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd. (2000) 159 CTR (Del) 243, ITO vs. Giirat Narmada Valliev Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (2000) 163 CTR (Guj) 554, CIT vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (2000) 164 (Guj) 129]. 7. For that learned CIT(Appeals) has erred to consider that claim of deduction by employees u/s 80DD and 80U, not on certificate issued by Medical Authority in prescribed form rather on th 11 ITA Nos. 22 to 27/Pat/2014. same certificate issued by doctor working in government Hospital have regularly been allowed by AO [TDS] even after effective date of amendment in provisions of section 80DD and 80U i.e. 01-04-2004 and never raised objection over it. In that sense Assessing Officer [TDS] has accepted that certificates have come from source required under provisions of both sections of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That learned CIT(Appeals) faild to go through right texture and tone of section 80DD and 80U. learned CIT(Appeals) has errd in considering fact that new provisions of section 80DD and 80U that ask from assessee to produce copy of Certificate issued by Medical Authority in prescribed form and manner with effect from 01-04- 2004. It clearly means that if employee is claiming deduction u/s 80DD or 80U for first time after 01-04-2004 he/she has to furnish copy bof Certificate issued by Medical Authority . But substituted provision never intends to produce copy of certificate issued by Medical Authority from those employee too who have already been claiming deduction u/s 80DD and 80U much before 01-04-2004. This very intention of newly substituted provision is very much clear from absence of any such clause of asking for certificate issued by Medical Authority. It is worthwhile to mention that change in provisions of Act does never mean omission of benefits provided by old provisions. provision existed at time of first claim of deduction will enue for consecutive years [ Snehlata Chandrakant Vs. Ms. Thanvi or his successor [Guj. 1 ITR vol 242 [2000] p. 293]. 9. For that learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in not considering order of Apex Court in case of Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 2004 [8] SSC 1- It is settled rule of construction that every statue is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have 12 ITA Nos. 22 to 27/Pat/2014. retrospective operation. But rule in general is applicable where object of statute is to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impose existing obligations. Unless there are words in statute sufficient to show intention of legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only.................................. Any amendment which has not been given retrospective effect by legislature cannot be construed as retrospective. 10. For that many more judgments reiterated same interpretation express by Apex Court mentioned in para 7 [Bharati Shipyard Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ITAT Mumbai B Special Bench, (2011) 141 TTJ (Mumbai) (SB) 129, Policy Network (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, (2012) 146 TTJ (Del) 464, CIT vs. Pooshya Export (P) Ltd. vs. Deputy CIT (2009) 120 TTJ (Del) (SB) 577, Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 148 TTJ (Mumbai) (SB) 393]. 11.For that learned CIT(Appeals) has failed to consider that substituted provisions of section 80DD and 80U never intends to produce copy of certificate issued by Medical Authority from those employees too who have already been claiming deduction u/s 80DD and 80U much before 01-04-2004. This very intention of newly substituted provision is very much clear from absence of any such clause of asking for certificate issued by Medical Authority from those assessees too who have already been claiming Deduction u/s 80DD and 80U much before effective date of new substitution i.e. 01-04-2004 it would have been mentioned in substituted provision. 12. For that though learned CIT(Appels) talks of intention of legislature but he himself failed to consider that intention of legislature is clearly expressed through terminology and language of provisions of section and no where language of substituted section of 80DD and 80U ever express is intention to enact itself with retrospective 13 ITA Nos. 22 to 27/Pat/2014. effect. learned CIT(Appeals) failed also to consider that sentence structure of said sections are in Present Tense. 13. For that learned CIT(Appeals) while talking of intention of legislature forgot to recall Budger Speech 2003-04 by Shri Jashwan Singh, Honourable Minister of Finance when he declares true intention of legislature 32. Government is committed to providing equal opportunities, protection of rights, and all round development of person with disability. number of initiatives have already been taken in this regard. 33. Now, for income tax purpose, it is proposed that physically handicapped or persons with such dependents be entitled to be deduction for permanent physical disability of Rs.50000 and enhanced deduction of Rs.75000 in case of severe disability. 14. For that learned CIT(Appeals) again forgot reason behind widening of scope of Section 80DD and 80U on Fundamental Principle of Equal opportunity, protection of rights, and all round development of person with disability, in Finance Bill 2003 i.e. Report of Task Force on Direct Tax [Kelkar Committee] who submitted its report on 27-12-2002. 15. For that Kelkar committee in iTs report stated that 4.018 Given personal circumstances of handicapped Task Force recommends continuation of personal deductions under section 80DD and 80U, however, on ground of equity, we also recommend that income based deduction under these provisions should be converted to tax rebate.... AND 4.010 policy measures for reform of personal Income tax therefore comprises of following elements; 14 ITA Nos. 22 to 27/Pat/2014. [a] ..................................... [1] income based deduction for handicapped Under section 80DD and 80U will however Continue 16. For that learned CIT(Appeals) wrongly jump to conclusion that old section has been removed altogether and has been substituted by new section if he would have been gone through Kelkar Committee Budge Speech of Minister of Finance and Finance Bill 2003 he would not have said so. 17. For that learned CIT(Appeals) miserably failed to understand that preamended 80DD and 80U provided benefit onlsy to person with permanent disability whereas as per intention of legislature section 80DD and 80U have been amended to widened up scope for person with temporary disability along with person with permanent disability. In other words, he failed to understand that old and new provision will go hand in hand parallel. In absence of any expression of retrospective effect new provision cannot nullify benefit of earlier provision. 18. For hat learned CIT(Appeals) forgot cardinal rule which clearly establishes that law to be applid is that which is in force on day of assessment yea unless sotherwise mandated expressly or provided by necessary implication. post amended section 80DD and 80U is effective with 01-04-2004 and there is no expression from legislature to enact these two sections with retrospective effect. 19. For hat learned CIT(Appeals) has erred to consider that claim of deduction by he employees u/s 80DD and 80U, not on same certificate issued by Medical Authority in prescribed form frather on same certificate issued by doctor working in government Hospital have regularly been allowed by AO even after effective date of amendment in provisions of section 80DD and 80U i.e. 01-04-2004. In that 15 ITA Nos. 22 to 27/Pat/2014. sense Assessing Officer has accepted that certificates have come from sources required under provisions of both sections of Income Tax Act, 1961. 20. For that learned CIT(Appeals) has erred with fact that certificate issued by doctor working in Government Hospital was no on consultant sheet rather on letter pad of said doctor with his Registration No. and stamp regarding his designation in Government Hospital. 21. For that learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in considering that claim of deductions under provisions of different sections of Act are like agreement between assessee and Act. Act with all is different provisions offers assessee to pick up schemes [such as exemptions, deductions, rebate and relief etc.] provided by Act just by satisfying and fulfilling certain criterias of that particular section of Act. Any amendment or change in terms and conditions of that particular schemes / provisions can never affect benefits provided by old terms and conditions of that particular scheme. 22. For that learned CIT(Appeals) has failed to understand that e- filing or paper filing of quarter return in form 24 Q was nothing but mode of filing while judgment of Honourable Patna High Court was meant for duty of filing return and in performing that duty of filing return Hon ble Patna High Court held that posting of valid return within time prescribed by Act Under Certificate of Posting was sufficient evidence of return having been filed within time [Commissioner of Income TGax Vs. Kalyani Selection Kargallia Colliery (1984) 146 ITR 577 (Pat) ]. For Patna High Court filing of return was more important. learned CIT(Appeals) failed to consider that return sent through UPC was also meant to file return electronically and not manually. said UPC was addressed to NSDL, Ara and not to local office of Income Tax. 16 ITA Nos. 22 to 27/Pat/2014. It is, therefore, prayed that submission be accepted and order of CIT(Appeals) be quashed. 6. Per contra learned D.R. relied upon orders of authorities below. He reiterated that after amendment in Act it was incumbent upon assessee to insist for proper medical certificate and assessee has erred in allowing deduction without obtaining same. 7. I have carefully considered submissions and perused records. I find that sole issue to be adjudicated here is whether assessee in this case can be treated to be assessee in default u/s 201(1) for not deducting tax on claim of deduction by employees u/s 80DD and 80U. Revenue s contention is that subsequent to amendment from 01-04-2004 for claiming deduction under these sections, fresh certificate of disability is required to be taken from prescribed medical authority. Per contra it is assessee s claim that considering earlier amendments in these sections and legal opinion obtained, assessee was under bonafide belief that employees claiming deduction under this section can continue to avail deduction on basis of certificates which were obtained earlier. 8. It is undisputed that assessee has sought legal opinion and legal adviser had advised assessee to continue to grant deduction to employees on basis of existing medical certificates which were obtained prior to amendment. This belief of assessee in my consider opinion cannot be said to be not bonafide. I find that provisions of Act in this regard could have been interpreted in two ways without reflecting any malafide. This is clear from long drawn reasoning mentioned by learned CIT(Appeals) in para 3.5 of his appellate order as above. It is settled law that when assessee was under bonafide belief that tax was not required to be deducted, assessee cannot be visited with provisions of section 201(1) of I.T. Act. For this proposition I may refer to following case laws : 17 ITA Nos. 22 to 27/Pat/2014. 1. CIT vs. Air France Ltd. 241 ITR 626 (Del.) [SLP dismissed, 242 ITR (ST) 185 (SC) ] 2. CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd. 243 ITR 435 (Del.). 9. Thus on facts and circumstances on this issue in particular noting fact that assessee has obtained legal opinion and considering complexity in interpretation of provisions as demonstrated by learned CIT(Appeals) interpretation in para 3.5 of his order above, I am of considered opinion that assessee can be held to be of bonafide belief that assessee was not required to insist upon asking employees to submit fresh medical certificates. Accordingly following above case laws, I hold that assessee cannot be held to be assessee in default u/s 201(1) of I.T. Act. Interest u/s 201(1A) is consequential. 10. I make it clear that assessee has been held to be not in default on basis of bonafide belief. I am not endorsing assessee s view on interpretation of law. 11. In result, these appeals by assessee stand allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on this 20th day of Sept., 2016. Sd/- ( SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. Dated: Sept., 2016. 18 ITA Nos. 22 to 27/Pat/2014. Copy forwarded to : 1. Principal, H.D. Jain College, Arrah. 2. Registrar, V.K.S. University, Arrah. 3. Principal, M.M. Mahila College, Arrah. 4. A.C.I.T., TDS Circle, Patna. 5. C.I.T.- , Patna. 6. CIT(Appeals), - , Patna. 7. D.R., ITAT, Patna. 8. Guard File True Copy By Order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. Wakode. Principal, H.D. Jain College v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS Circle, Patna