9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot concerned with the dispute between the petitioner and the Income Tax Department. If the TDS had been deducted by the petitioner from the payments made to the respondents, the petitioner is bound to furnish TDS certificates to the respondents. In the event the petitioner is unable to furnish TDS certificates, it would have to pay the said amounts to the petitioner. Nothing has been furnished by the petitioner to show that the amount deducted by it towards TDS has been deposited with the Income Tax Department. The petitioner has unjustifiably failed to make the payment of ₹ 5,60,000/- and ₹ 1,80,000/- to the respondents respectively, and it was only after the abovesaid order was passed by this Court on 1st September, 2021 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebtor (JD) was directed to pay a sum of ₹ 5,60,000/- in CM(M) 641/2021 and ₹ 1,80,000/- in CM(M) 642/2021 to the respondents/decree holders within 15 days failing which the petitioner was directed to pay a penalty of ₹ 10,000/- per week till the time the payment is made to the respondents/decree holders. 4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that (i) the penalty imposed in terms of the said orders was exorbitant; (ii) there was a dispute between the petitioner and the Income Tax Department because of which the Income Tax Department wrongly recovered the amount from the petitioner by attaching its bank accounts and made wrongful adjustments of the amount deposited by the petitioner towards Tax Deducted at Source (TD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, 2021 in CM(M) 576/2021 and CM(M)577/2021 preferred by the petitioner. While disposing of the said petitions on 1st September, 2021, following directions were made: 13. Accordingly, both petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (i) The principal amount of TDS due in both the petitions i.e. ₹ 5,60,000/- and Rs.l,80,000/- respectively would be paid by the petitioner to the respondents on or before 4th September, 2021. (ii) The penalty amount of ₹ 10,70,000/- imposed separately in both the petitions would be paid to the respondents on or before 22nd September, 2021. (iii) Out of the amount of ₹ 36,87,264/-, subject matter of CM(M) 577/2021, a sum of ₹ 22,00,000/- as calculate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instructions, the counsel for the petitioner withdrew the said applications. The said applications were dismissed by the order dated 6th September, 2021 with costs of ₹ 10,000/-, with the following observations: 4. The Court is surprised with this kind of instruction being given by the petitioner to its advocate. It creates a doubt whether petitioner intends to honour its commitments in terms of order dated 1st September, 2021. Be that as it may, the counsel for the respondent would have remedies in law, in case the payments in terms of the order dated 1st September, 2021 are not made. 8. I am informed by the counsel for the respondents that the amount of TDS directed to be paid by the order dated 1st September, 2021 was on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner should have challenged the impugned orders immediately. The reason why the said penalty has magnified into a sum of ₹ 10,70,000/- is only because the petitioner did not pay the amounts of TDS that were required to be paid. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot avoid the payment of the penalty imposed by the impugned orders. 11. Counsel for the respondents fairly submits that in the event the petitioner furnishes proof of deposit of TDS amounts of ₹ 5,60,000/- and ₹ 1,80,000/- to the credit of the respondents, and/or TDS certificates in the name of the respondents, the aforesaid amounts shall be refunded back by the respondents to the petitioner. 12. There is no merit in the present petitions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
