SAPNA V.S , V. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS),

WP(C)/17311/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Sapna V.S., an Assistant Engineer and an Income Tax assessee, against the Income Tax Officer (TDS) and the Union of India. The petitioner challenged the intimation and demand notice issued for late filing fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act for the financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The core legal issue was the applicability of Section 234E, which was argued to be effective only from June 1, 2015, and not retrospectively. The court referenced previous judgments that supported the prospective application of Section 234E, leading to the quashing of the demand notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 676368 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India and another [W.P.(C.) No.37775/2018]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH NAMBIAR
• Keywords: Income Tax; Late filing fee; Quash demand notice; Prospective law
• Section: 234E; 200A; 200(8)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2023 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 17311 OF 2023 PETITIONER: 1 SAPNA V.S., AGED 42 YEARS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD EZHOME GRAMA PANCHAYATH, EZHOME P.O, KANNUR-670334 BY ADV RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), OFFICE IF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KANNOTHUMCHAL, KANNUR -670006 2 UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC No.17311 of 2023 2 C.S.DIAS, J. ------------------------- W .P .(C.) No.17311 of 2023 ------------------------- Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2023 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P1 intimation demanding late filing fee from the petitioner and Ext.P2 consequential demand notice issued by the first respondent. 2. The petitioner's case is that, she is an Assistant Engineer and an Income Tax assessee. The petitioner had submitted her returns as required under Section 200(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the financial years 2014-15 to 2016-17. The same was processed by the first respondent. Subsequently, the first respondent issued Ext.P1 intimation notice to the petitioner demanding late filing fee and WPC No.17311 of 2023 3 thereafter, issued Ext.P2 demand notice. The demand in Exts.P1 and P2 pertain for late filing fee under Section 234E of the Act for the financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15, are illegal and unsustainable in law. A demand under Section 234E can only be made for a period post 01.06.2015 because Section 200A was inserted in the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. This Court, by Exts.P3 and P4 judgments, has categorically held that Section 234E is only prospective in nature. Thus, the demand in Exts.P1 and P2 are liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; Sri.Rajesh Nambiar, 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 deciphered that the respondents have WPC No.17311 of 2023 4 made a demand for late filing fee for the financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15, for an amount of Rs.47,440/- and Rs.12,350/- respectively. 5. This Court in Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India and another [W .P .(C.) No.37775/2018], which has attained finality, interpreting Section 234E and 200A of the Act, has declared the law that the respondents are not empowered to levy late filing fee under Section 234E of the Act prior to 01.06.2015. To put it differently, the above provision is only prospective in nature. 6. In the above conspectus, I am of the definite view that the demand made by the respondents in Exts.P1 and P2 in respect of financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15 is unsustainable in law and are liable to be quashed. Resultantly, I allow the writ petition as WPC No.17311 of 2023 5 follows: (i) Ext.P1 intimation and Ext.P2 demand notice are quashed. (ii) The respondents are restrained from recovering any late filing fee from the petitioner in respect of the above two years pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2. Sd/- C. S. DIAS JUDGE SKP/03-07 WPC No.17311 of 2023 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17311/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 14.11.2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE EXT P1 INTIMATION EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C) 37775/2018 DATED 18.12.2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE IN W.P.(C) 24533/2021 DATED 30.11.2021 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE "