9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E VINEET KOTHARI For the Appellant : Mr. Vishwanatha K, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. K.V. Aravind, Adv. ORDER 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned intimation under Section 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 petitioner to deduct the Tax at Source and the levy of interest under Section 234E was made in the impugned intimation resulting in demand against thepetitioner-assessee. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 200A by the respondent-authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent. 25. As such, as recorded earlier, it is on account 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 rende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notbe interpreted to mean that even if the payment of the fees under Section 234E already made as per demand/intimation under Section 200A of the Act for the TDS for the period prior to 01.04.2015 is permitted to be reopened for claiming refund. The judgment will 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 petitioner Mr. K. Vishwanatha has argued that the said judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
