1/21, 10:08] Sekarreporter 1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* Olari Little Flower Kuries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors Dated: 22.10.2021 Reported: [2022] 440 ITR 26 (Ker) *Honourable S.V. Bhatti & Hon’ble Justice Basant Balaji* in the matters relating to *“Section 200A [1/21, 10:08] Sekarreporter 1: *GLIMPSE OF A
[1/21, 10:08] Sekarreporter 1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*
Olari Little Flower Kuries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors
Dated: 22.10.2021
Reported: [2022] 440 ITR 26 (Ker)
*Honourable S.V. Bhatti & Hon’ble Justice Basant Balaji* in the matters relating to *“Section 200A
[1/21, 10:08] Sekarreporter 1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*
Olari Little Flower Kuries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors
Dated: 22.10.2021
Reported: [2022] 440 ITR 26 (Ker)
*Honourable S.V. Bhatti & Hon’ble Justice Basant Balaji* in the matters relating to *“Section 200A & 234E – Levy of Late Fee for Delay in Filing – Intimation calling for Fee prior to 01.06.2015 – Held Not Sustainable”* allowed the Writ Appeals, setting aside the impugned intimations under Section 200A read with Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further observed and held as follows:
i) The instant case is that intimations under S.200A r/w S.234E relating to the financial year 2012-13 and 2013-14 were served upon the Petitioner. Clause (c) of Section 200A(1) was inserted with effect from 01.06.2015. Respondent argued that Section 200A(1)(c) is procedural and clarificatory in nature and would have retrospective operation. Case in hand, whether S.200A(1)(c) is prospective or retrospective.
ii) Referred: _Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2017] 10 ITR-OL 509 (Karn)_ , answered the question whether clause (c) of S.200A(1) is prospective or retrospective. It was held that as per well established principles of interpretation of statue, unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. As such, it was found that substitution made by clauses (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect only and not retroactive effect.
iii) However, it was made clear that if any deductor had already paid the fee as per intimation received under Section 200A, the deductor cannot reopen the matter unless the payment made under protest.
iv) In another Appeal in the same Batch matter, the validity of the Section 234E of the Act was challenged. The Hon’ble Court referred to _Rashmikant Kundalia vs. Union of India [2015] 373 ITR 268 (Bom)_ , wherein it was held that S. 234E is _intra vires_ the Constitution of India.
[1/21, 10:08] Sekarreporter 1: 🌹
& 234E – Levy of Late Fee for Delay in Filing – Intimation calling for Fee prior to 01.06.2015 – Held Not Sustainable”* allowed the Writ Appeals, setting aside the impugned intimations under Section 200A read with Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further observed and held as follows:
i) The instant case is that intimations under S.200A r/w S.234E relating to the financial year 2012-13 and 2013-14 were served upon the Petitioner. Clause (c) of Section 200A(1) was inserted with effect from 01.06.2015. Respondent argued that Section 200A(1)(c) is procedural and clarificatory in nature and would have retrospective operation. Case in hand, whether S.200A(1)(c) is prospective or retrospective.
ii) Referred: _Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2017] 10 ITR-OL 509 (Karn)_ , answered the question whether clause (c) of S.200A(1) is prospective or retrospective. It was held that as per well established principles of interpretation of statue, unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. As such, it was found that substitution made by clauses (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect only and not retroactive effect.
iii) However, it was made clear that if any deductor had already paid the fee as per intimation received under Section 200A, the deductor cannot reopen the matter unless the payment made under protest.
iv) In another Appeal in the same Batch matter, the validity of the Section 234E of the Act was challenged. The Hon’ble Court referred to _Rashmikant Kundalia vs. Union of India [2015] 373 ITR 268 (Bom)_ , wherein it was held that S. 234E is _intra vires_ the Constitution of India.
[1/21, 10:08] Sekarreporter 1: 🌹
