9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 682 - HC - Income TaxTDS on the salary made to the petitioner - Benefit of the tax deducted at source by the employer - HELD THAT - The case is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of this very Court rendered in case of Devarsh Pravinbhai Patel. 2018 (9) TMI 1635 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT where too, the petitioner was an employee of the Kingfisher Airlines and worked as a pilot. In his case also the TDS on the salary made to the petitioner had not been deposited. It is only when the department raised the tax demand with interest and initiated the actions of the recovery that this Court was approached - Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court rendered in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others vs. Om Prakash Gattani 2000 (1) TMI 43 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT This Court allowed the same stating Department cannot deny the benefit of tax deducted at source by the employer of the petitioner during the relevant financial years. Credit of such tax would be given to the petitioner for the respective years. If there has been any recovery or adjustment out of the refunds of the later years, the same shall be returned to the petitioner with statutory interest. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) by the employer. 2. Recovery notices issued to the petitioner. 3. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Entitlement to TDS credit and refund. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) by the employer: The petitioner, a pilot formerly employed by Kingfisher Airlines, had TDS amounts of ?7,20,100/- for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and ?8,70,757/- for the Assessment Year 2011-12 deducted from his salary. However, these amounts were not deposited by the Airlines into the Central Government Account. Consequently, when the petitioner claimed credit for these TDS amounts, the respondent did not grant the credit and raised a demand with interest. 2. Recovery notices issued to the petitioner: Aggrieved by the non-credit of TDS and the subsequent recovery notices dated 19.11.2013 and 21.08.2014, the petitioner approached the Court seeking cancellation of the outstanding demand and recovery notices. The petitioner argued that the obligation to deposit TDS lies with the employer and should not be imposed on him. 3. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution: The respondent, in their affidavit-in-reply, contended that the petition under Article 226 could not be maintained as the petitioner failed to disclose any violation of statutory or constitutional rights. They also argued that the petitioner should have joined Kingfisher Airlines as a necessary party and highlighted the delay in filing the petition. 4. Entitlement to TDS credit and refund: The Court noted that the factual matrix was not disputed and referred to the precedent set in the case of Devarsh Pravinbhai Patel vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(1)(1), where a similar issue involving a Kingfisher Airlines employee was resolved. The Court reiterated the principle from the Bombay High Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others vs. Om Prakash Gattani, which held that the responsibility to deposit TDS lies with the employer, and the assessee should not be penalized for the employer's failure to deposit the deducted tax. The Court emphasized Section 205 of the Income-tax Act, which precludes the department from recovering tax from the assessee if TDS has been deducted but not deposited by the employer. It was held that the department should recover the tax from the employer and not the assessee. Judgment: The Court allowed the petition, directing that the petitioner is entitled to the credit of TDS for the respective years. If any recovery or adjustment had been made by the respondent, the petitioner is entitled to a refund with statutory interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court also noted that proceedings against the employer had been initiated. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
|
