SRI UMADHARAN K.C vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The petitioner's case is as follows: (i) The petitioner is an assessee for several years. There was a delay on his part in filing quarterly returns for the financial years 2012-13 and 2014-15 as prescribed under Section 200 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). (ii) The second respondent processed the TDS return filed by the petitioner and has levied late fee under Section 234E read with Section 220(2) of the Act. (iii) It is only in the year 2021, that the petitioner came to learn of the levy of late fee through a notice that was sent by the first respondent demanding payment of arrears of tax. The petitioner has not received the earlier orders. (iv) As Exts.P2 and P3 orders were passed in the years 2015 and 2016, and as the statutory period to file the appeals and the rectification applications has expired, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the third respondent under Section 264 of the Act. (v) The petitioner’s principal contention is that Section 200A(1)(c) was incorporated only on 01.06.2015. The said

Heard; Smt.Divya Ravindran, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

The Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P7 judgment has categorically declared that Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act has no retrospective operation for assessments prior to 01.06.2015. 5. Even though the above decision was brought to the notice of the third respondent as reflected in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, under the head ‘comments of the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax (TDS), the third respondent has failed to follow the ratio decidendi of this Court in Ext.P7 judgment.

I find the course adopted by the third respondent to be erroneous and wrong. When Ext.P7 judgment was brought to the notice of the third respondent, he was bound to follow the binding precedent.

In the above background, in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I set aside Ext.P5 order as prayed in the writ petition and direct the third respondent to reconsider the matter afresh after adverting to Exts.P6 and P7 judgments of this Court. Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows: (i) Ext.P5 order is set aside. (ii) The third respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 revision petition, in accordance with law, after adverting to law laid down by this Court in Exts.P6 and P7 judgments, as expeditiously as possible, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext.P4 revision petition as ordered above, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 notice shall stand deferred. C. S. DIAS JUDGE SKP/21-06