2021 (10) TMI 156 - HC - Income Tax

Deposit of TDS - Proof of deposit - HELD THAT - As held petitioner had to submit TDS certificates for the amount deducted by it towards payment of tax deducted at source (TDS) under the Income Tax Act. If the said TDS amount has not been deposited, the petitioner has to pay the aforesaid amount to the respondents. Since, the petitioner has not shown any proof that he has paid the TDS amount, he would have to pay the said amount to the respondents. It is also an admitted position that the orders dated 22nd May, 2019 and 1st August, 2019 have never been challenged by the petitioner and therefore, the aforesaid amounts of TDS and penalty have become final. Submissions of the petitioner that the sum as been calculated only on the basis of the calculation filed by the respondents, the Court is of the view that the petitioner would have a right to submit his own calculations in respect of the amount due. However, the said calculations have to be drawn on the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench wherein it is clearly provided that a sum of ₹ 5,50,000/- per month is payable even for the period from 1st March, 2010 to 31 st October, 2010. If the difference between the amount of ₹ 5,50,000/- per month as directed by the Division Bench and ₹ 2,75,000/- per month as claimed by the petitioner is taken into account for the period of eight months, a sum of ₹ 22,00,000/- becomes payable by the petitioner to the respondents.

Summary

Issues:
Challenges to orders passed by the Additional District Judge in Execution Petitions, Failure to provide TDS certificates, Non-payment of outstanding amounts, Disputed calculations of amounts due, Delay in payments by the petitioner.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the petitions under Article 227 challenging orders passed by the Additional District Judge. The Executing Court had issued warrants of attachment of properties due to the petitioner's failure to provide TDS certificates and pay penalties. The petitioner disputed the amounts due, citing a consent order and the Division Bench's judgment. The respondents argued that the petitioner delayed payments and failed to comply with court orders, leading to penalties and warrants.

The Court noted that the petitioner had to submit TDS certificates and pay the due amounts, as evidenced by unchallenged orders. The petitioner's submissions on disputed amounts were considered, with the Court emphasizing compliance with the Division Bench's judgment. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding the sealed property during a specific period, stating that the issue had been settled in previous orders.

Regarding the calculation discrepancies, the Court determined an additional amount payable by the petitioner based on the Division Bench's directive. The scope of one petition was limited to TDS and penalty payments. The Court issued directions for timely payments of TDS, penalties, and the calculated amount, providing an opportunity for objections. Failure to comply would result in the respondents pressing for arrest warrants. Both petitions were disposed of along with pending applications.