Appendix Of Wp(C) v. Income Tax Officer (Tds), W.p.(C) 1078/2022 Dated 18..05..2022 .Respondents' Exhibits:nil
High Court
05 Apr 2023 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Appendix Of Wp(C) v. Income Tax Officer (Tds), W.p.(C) 1078/2022 Dated 18..05..2022 .Respondents' Exhibits:nil
Date of order
05 Apr 2023
Assessment year(s)
2015-16
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Appendix Of Wp(C) v. Income Tax Officer (Tds), W.p.(C) 1078/2022 Dated 18..05..2022 .Respondents' Exhibits:nil, the High Court (2023) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
WEDNESDAY, THE 5 DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 12334 OF 2023
05.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R. RAVI, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.12334 of 2023------------------------------------Dated this the 05[th] day of April, 2023JUDGMENT
Admit. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
takes notice for the 5[th] respondent. The respectiveStanding Counsel takes notice for the respondents 1to 4.
2. The prayer in the writ petition is to quashExts.P1, P2 and P3 intimations to the extent theydemand late filing levy under Section 234E of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. The issue is no longer resintegra. This Court has already held that such a levyis not possible in the judgment in W.P.(C.)No.37715/2018 which was confirmed by thejudgment of a Division Bench in W.A. No.722/2019. Alearned Single Judge has thereafter followed theabove judgments in a case of a similarly situated
person in Ext.P7 judgment in W.P.(C.) No.1078/2022.
I do not find any reason to take a different view.The writ petition is hence allowed and Exts.P1, P2 andP3 intimations are quashed to the extent theydemand late fee under Section 234(E).
SKP/05-04
Sd/-
T.R.RAVIJUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12334/2023
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:EXHIBIT-P1
EXHIBIT-P1TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF LEVY U/S 234E, AGAINST 26Q OF Q1 FOR F.Y: 2014-15 DATED 12..06..2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.EXHIBIT-P2TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF LEVY U/S 234E, AGAINST 26Q OF Q2 FOR F.Y: 2014-15 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12..06..2015 RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.EXHIBIT-P3TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF LEVY U/S 234E, AGAINST 26Q OF Q3 FOR F.Y: 2014-15 DATED 12..06..2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.EXHIBIT-P4TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28..02..2023 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AGAINST EXT-P1 (RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15) ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.EXHIBIT-P5TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28.02..2023 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AGAINST EXT-P2 (RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15) ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.EXHIBIT-P6TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28..02..2023 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AGAINST EXT-P3 (RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15) ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.EXHIBIT-P7TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN HEAD MASTER VS INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), W.P.(C) 1078/2022 DATED 18..05..2022 .RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.