Dismissing the petition the Court held that notices issued under section\u00a0226(3)\u00a0without challenging the demand made under section\u00a0201(1A)\u00a0was not maintainable. The assessee was not aggrieved by the demand for the outstanding tax with interest and penalty for which intimation under section\u00a0200A(1)\u00a0had been given to the assessee. The assessee was only aggrieved by the notices under section\u00a0226(3)\u00a0calling upon the assessee\u2019s bank to make the deposit of the outstanding liability standing against the assessee. Section\u00a0201\u00a0was prima facie not attracted. The Department had found discrepancy on account of deduction of tax at source on the salary component and, accordingly, on the basis of voluntary return filed by the assessee along with statement of tax deduction at source had given intimation under section\u00a0200A(1)\u00a0to the assessee. Since the assessee did not respond to the intimation of demand given by respondent No. 3, the intimation under section\u00a0200A(1)\u00a0was treated as a notice of demand. There was failure on the part of the assessee to meet the demand and deposit the outstanding tax. Accordingly, notice under section\u00a0226(3)\u00a0was issued. The assessee was within its rights to file a statutory appeal under section\u00a0246A\u00a0before the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore, could not straightaway approach the court invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction under article\u00a0226\u00a0of the\u00a0Constitution of India. There was an inseparable causal connection between the intimation of demand under section\u00a0200A(1)\u00a0and recovery proceedings under section\u00a0226. Directed to file an appeal before CIT(A)\u00a0 (AY.2007-08 to 2015-16)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 200 : Deduction at source-Duty of person deducting tax-Intimation of demand-Not responding to notice-Garnishee notice to bank-Alternative remedy-Writ is not maintainable. [S. 201(IA), 221, 226(3), 246A, Art. 226] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34635","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-90D","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34635","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34635"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34635\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":34636,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34635\/revisions\/34636"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34635"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34635"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34635"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}