HEAD MASTER, V. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS),

WP(C)/21088/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Head Master of an aided lower primary school in Kerala, who filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Officer (TDS) and other respondents, challenging an intimation demanding a late filing fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner argued that the school, being an Income Tax assessee, had deducted and remitted TDS but filed returns with a delay, leading to the intimation for a late filing fee for the financial year 2013-2014. The court referenced its earlier judgment in Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India, which declared that Section 234E is applicable only from June 1, 2015, onwards, and not before. Consequently, the court found the demand for the late filing fee for the period prior to this date to be legally unsustainable and quashed the intimation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 748696 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India, JIJI VARGHESE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: P J ANILKUMAR; K N SREEKUMARAN; N SANTHOSHKUMAR
• Keywords: Income Tax; Late filing fee; TDS; Aided school
• Section: 234E; 200A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 21088 OF 2023 PETITIONER: HEAD MASTER, AGED 51 YEARS, AIDED LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KONGAMPARA, KOZHIPPARA, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678557 BY ADVS.P .J.ANILKUMAR (A-1768) K.N.SREEKUMARAN N.SANTHOSHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AAYKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678014 2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS-CPC, AAYKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GAZIABAD, UTTARPRADESH, PIN – 201010 3 CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110002 4 THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 21088 OF 2023 :: 2 :: JUDGMENT Dated this the 30th day of June 2023 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P1 intimation demanding late filing fee from the petitioner under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act (in short ‘Act’). 2. The petitioner’s case is that, it is an aided school and an Income Tax assessee. The petitioner had deducted TDS and remitted the same to the first respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner electronically filed its returns with some delay. After processing the returns, the second respondent has issued Ext.P1 intimation to the petitioner, levying late filing fee under Section 234E of the Act for the financial year 2013- 2014. Section 234E was inserted in the Act by the Finance Act, 2012, with effect from 1.7.2012. In Ext.P2 judgment, this Court following its earlier judgment in Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India and another WP(C) NO. 21088 OF 2023 :: 3 :: (W .P .(C)No.37775/2018), which has attained finality, after interpreting Section 234E and 200A of the Act has categorically declared the law that the respondents are not empowered to levy late filing fee under Section 234 E of the Act prior to 1.6.2015. In other words, the above provision is only prospective in nature. Therefore, the demand in Ext.P1 intimation for late filing fee is unsustainable in law. The petitioners is entitled to the benefit of the judgment in Sarala Memorial Hospital (supra). Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard Sri.P .J.Anilkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. On an appreciation of Ext.P1 intimation, it can be gathered that the demand for late filing fee is in respect of the financial year 2013-2014, that is, indisputably for the period prior to 1.6.2015. WP(C) NO. 21088 OF 2023 :: 4 :: 5. In the light of interpretation given in Sarala Memorial Hospital (supra), I have no hesitation to hold that the demand in Ext.P1 intimation for late filing fee is unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be quashed. Resultantly, I allow the writ petition as follows: (i) Ext.P1 intimation issued by the second respondent is quashed. (ii) The respondents are restrained from recovering any amount from the petitioner pursuant to the quashed Ext.P1 intimation. sd/- C.S.DIAS JUDGE jes WP(C) NO. 21088 OF 2023 :: 5 :: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21088/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED16..01..2015 OF LEVY U/S 234E, AGAINST 24Q OF Q4 FOR F .Y: 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN JIJI VARGHESE VS INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), W .P .(C) 1259/2022 DATED 24..03..2022 . "