Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: payment under protest in Veena Somani , Bangalore vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 4 June, 2019Matching Fragments
"However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest. (Para - 22) It is clarified that the present judgment would not be 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. (Para --
4.1.2 It was also submitted that the CIT(A) has misdirected himself by misreading the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra); particularly the observation that :
".......................if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to re-open the said question unless he has made payment under protest."(para 22) ITA Nos. 2822 & 2823/Bang/2018 And the observation in para 27 that:
22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Linder the circumstances, we find that substitution made by clause (c) to (I) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character 01. effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payn-2ent of fee under Section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under Section 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective assessment year prior to .6.2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest.