9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Centralized Processing Cell (TDS), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, by the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax regarding the alleged failure of the petitioners to deduct the Tax at Source and the levy of interest under Section 234E was made in the impugned intimations resulting in demand against the petitioners-assessees. 2. However, the learned counsels for both the parties have brought to the notice of the Court that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, since reported in (2016) 142 DTR Judgments 281 has held that no such interest can be levied under Section 234E of the Act. The relevant paras 23 to 27 are quoted below for read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of the intimation received under Section 200A for making computation and demand of fees under Section 234E, the same has necessitated the appellant to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 234E. When the intimation of the demand notices under Section 200A is held to be without authority of law so far as it relates to computation and demand of fee under Section 234E, we find that the question of further scrutiny for testing the constitutional validity of Section 234E would be rendered as an academic exercise because there would not be any cause on the part of the petitioners to continue to maintain the challenge to constitutional validity under Section 234E of the Act. At this stage, we may also record that the learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill have prospective effect accordingly. It is further observed that the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E shall remain open to be considered by the Division Bench and shall not get concluded by the order of the learned Single Judge. 28. The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs". 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Ashok A.Kulakarni & Ms.H.Vani have argued that the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is binding on the Respondents and since they have not apparently appealed against the said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said judgment deserves to be implemented by them. 4. This is not disputed by the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
