9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly the tax deducted from salary of the petitioner has not been deposited by his employer. 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? - HELD THAT:- In the case of BDR Finvest Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, [ 2023 (11) TMI 808 - DELHI HIGH COURT] it was clarified that payment of the tax deducted at source to the Central Government has to be understood as the payment in accordance with law. The petitioner having accepted the salary after deduction of income tax at source h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondents Through: Mr Krishna Chandra Dubey, Advocate for R-1. Mr Aseem Chawla, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms Pratishtha Chaudhary and Mr Aditya Gupta, Advocates for Revenue. GIRISH KATHPALIA, J. 1. By way of this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or Mandamus or appropriate writ, direction or order setting aside the Impugned Intimation dated 15.01.2014 issued by the Respondent No. 3 under Section 143(1) of the Act raising a demand of tax of Rs. 21,50,150/- (Rupees Twenty-One Lakh Fifty Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Only) for the Assessment Year 2012-13 as being arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable; and. ii. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conduct of his employer and salaries of employees remaining unpaid, petitioner resigned from service on 08.10.2013. 2.4 On 15.01.2014, respondent no. 3 issued intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act raising demand of Rs. 16,83,765/- with interest to the tune of Rs. 4,66,385/- for AY 2012-13. The petitioner sent reply dated 24.02.2014 informing that apparently his employer had not deposited the tax deducted at source, so the outstanding dues be recovered by the respondents from his employer. Thereafter vide letter dated 31.03.2014, petitioner further informed the respondents that he had received salary in Financial Year 2011-12 after deduction of tax but the same was not being reflected in Form 26AS for which petitioner could not be h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 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 case of Sanjay Sudan vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2023] 148 taxmann.com 329 (Delhi). T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Instruction is extracted hereafter: 2. As per Section 199 of the Act credit of Tax Deducted at Source is given to the person only if it is paid to the Central Government Account. However, as per Section 205 of the Act the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax to the extent tax has been deducted from his income where the tax is deductible at source under the provisions of Chapter XVII. Thus the Act puts a bar on direct demand against the assessee in such cases and the demand on account of tax credit mismatch cannot be enforced coercively 9. The question, therefore, which comes to fore, is as to whether the respondents/revenue can do indirectly what they cannot do directly. 9.1 The adjustment of demand against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mployer acting as tax collecting agent of the revenue under Chapter XVII of the Act to pay the deducted tax amount to the Central Government in accordance with law. The employer of the petitioner having failed to perform his duty to deposit the deducted tax with the revenue, petitioner cannot be penalized. It would always be open for revenue to proceed against employer of the petitioner for recovery of the deducted tax. 9. Same view has been taken by this court in the case of PCIT vs Jasjit Singh, ITA 295/2023 decided on 02.11.2023 (subsequent to the date when judgment in this case was reserved). Section 199 of the Act, in our view cannot operate as impediment to grant relief to the petitioner. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
