9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted against the illegal and erroneous demand; and/or iii. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction to the Respondents to grant statutory interest on the illegally adjusted refund amount of Rs. 3,88,209/-; and/or iv. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction to the Respondents to grant compensatory interest on the illegally adjusted refund amount of Rs. 3,88,209/-; and/or v. To issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, to quash the impugned intimation dated 03.03.2021 (Annexure P/41); and/or vi. To issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, to quash the impugned intimations dated 02.07.2016 & 12.08.2016(Annexure P/21) for the AY 2016-17, and impugned intimation dated 19.10.2017 (Annexure P/26) for the AY 2017-18, issued under Section 245 of the Act; and/or vii. To issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, to quash the impugned intimations/orders dated 21.03.2011 (Annexure P/6); dated 23.10.2012 (Annexure P/10); dated 16.01.2014 (Annexure P/14); dated 24.09.2016 (Annexure P/22) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 14,90,055/- from salary of petitioner. On 31.03.2012, petitioner filed his return of income for AY 2011-12 declaring gross total income of Rs. 53,30,384/- and claimed TDS of Rs. 14,90,055/-. On 23.10.2012, the respondents issued intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, thereby again denying the TDS credit claim of petitioner and raising a demand of Rs. 19,15,807/- towards tax and interest and adjusting a refund of Rs. 24,248/-. 2.4 For AY 2012-13 pertaining to the period from 01.04.2011 to 14.02.2012, employer of the petitioner deducted TDS to the tune of Rs. 13,59,207/-. On 26.03.2013, petitioner filed his return of income for AY 2012-13 declaring gross total income of Rs. 66,11,970/- and declared tax and interest payable at Rs. 19,03,910/-. On 16.01.2014, respondents issued intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act on the ground of unmatched tax deducted at source and raised demand of Rs. 18,16,870/- towards tax and interest. 2.5 The petitioner through his authorized representative filed a rectification application dated 25.02.2014 under Section 154 of the Act seeking to set aside the demands raised for AYs 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 as well as to allow the credit of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covery of outstanding demand was granted till finalization of proceedings. 2.15 Hence, the present petition. 3. The factual position pleaded by the petitioner and admitted by the respondents is that the respondents raised multiple demands of outstanding income tax and interest pertaining to Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13. It is also not in dispute that as reflected from records, the petitioner was being paid salary after deduction of income tax at source but his employer namely Kingfisher Airlines Limited did not deposit the same with the revenue. Despite repeated communications from petitioner, the said demands were not withdrawn by the respondents, so the petitioner approached this court by way of writ action. 4. That being so, the core issue to be considered by us is as to whether any recovery towards the said outstanding tax demand can be effected against the petitioner in view of the admitted position that the tax payable on salary of the petitioner was being regularly deducted at source by his employer namely Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. who did not deposit the deducted tax with the revenue. 5. The said issue stands covered by the judgment of this court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 205 of the Act. 9.2 The fact that the instruction merely provides that no coercive measure will be taken against the assessee, in our view, falls short of what is put in place by the legislature via Section 205 of the Act. 10. Therefore, in our view, the petitioner is right inasmuch as neither can the demand qua the tax withheld by the deductor/employer be recovered from him, nor can the same amount be adjusted against the future refund, if any, payable to him." 6. On behalf of revenue, it was contended that no credit for tax can be given to the petitioner, since in view of the provisions under Section 199 of the Income Tax Act the credit can be given only when the tax which was deducted at source is paid to the Central Government and in the present case, admittedly the tax deducted from salary of the petitioner has not been deposited by his employer. This contention was raised also in the case of Sanjay Sudan (supra) but not accepted by this court. 7. Further, in the case of BDR Finvest Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, WP(C) 9043/2021 decided by this court on 31.10.2023, it was clarified that payment of the tax deducted at source to the Central Government has to be understood as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
