TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1291
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....UMAR FOR THE RESPONDENT : BY ADVS. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC SRI.MANU.S, ASGI JUDGMENT As an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, petitioner had deducted TDS for payments made by him and remitted the same to the Income Tax Department. While filing the statement of returns regarding the remittance of TDS, delay occurred. When the returns were processed, the second respondent, on noticing t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....two hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues." 3. According to the petitioner, though section 234E of the Act was introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1 st July, 2012, since petitioner is being demanded to pay, by Ext.P1 to Ext.P9, late fee for not filing the statement of tax deduction at source, it is necessary to refer to section 200A of the Act. It was fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allenge the levy of late fee. In such circumstances, the demands have become final and the petitioner has accepted the demands. Respondents also pleaded that the delay is a ground to refuse an appropriate relief so as to avoid unsettling the settled things. Relying upon the decisions in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar (AIR 1995 SC 1991), G.C.Gupta and Others v. N.K.Pandey and Others [(1988) 1 SCC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om 1 st June, 2015 and is thus prospective in nature. The aforesaid judgment has become final and is binding upon the authorities. Thus the jurisdiction to levy late fee under section 234E arises only from 01-06.2015 and not earlier. 8. As regards the contention on the delay, though the said contention was impressive on first blush, it can be seen that the nature of challenge raised by the petiti....