9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t compliance of the provision of section 205 of the Act as well as Instruction issued by the CBDT are followed and necessary corrections be made in the software so as to see that no demand is raised in case of the deductee on account of failure to deposit the amount of Tax Deducted at Source by the deductor. The Instruction issued by the CBDT under section 119 of the Act are binding upon all the officers of the department including the computer center which is now almost doing the job of the Assessing Officer. The technology used cannot be made to cause inconvenience to the tax payers contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Instruction issued by the CBDT resulting into helplessness on the human agency who has created the software resulting into the slavery of the technology. This is a classic case where the technology has failed to consider the provisions of the Act and the binding instructions of the CBDT. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) No. 1 : Aditya C Yagnik (8228). For the Petitioner(s) No. 1: Jayani B Shah (8495). For the Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr Nikunt K Raval (5558). For the Respondent(s) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deducted from their salary but not deposited by the said Company and accordingly, the petitioners are subjected to assessment without giving the set off of the tax deducted from their salary. 3. This Court by order dated 29.04.2024 recording the facts of the case, issued the Notice and stayed the impugned notices till final disposal of the petition. 4. Today, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are suffering continuous loss as they are not entitled to the refund because of the pendency of this proceeding. 5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sanghani submitted that in one of the matters, the reply is already filed by the respondent. 6. Considering the above submissions, list these matters for final disposal on 07.10.2024 on top of the Board. 3. Learned advocate Ms. Manini Bharati for the petitioner submitted that the impugned intimation under section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 [for short the Act ] was passed ignoring the Instruction No. 275/29/2014-IT-(B) dated 01.06.2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes [ CBDT for short] as well as Office Memorandum F.No. 275/29/2014-IT(B) dated 11.03.2016. It was further submitted that the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 in Special Civil Application No. 5835/2024 which read as under: It is also worthwhile to mention that suo moto credit of TDS is not allowed while processing the return of income u/s. 143 (1) of the I.T. Act unless the tax deducted by deductor is deposited to the government s account. In the petitioner s case as evident from the 26AS that the employer has deposited tax 9g the tune of Rs. 1,26,153/- pertaining to FY 2019-20 as against the claim of TDS of Rs. 3,53,597/- by the petitioner. Therefore, credit of TDS is granted to the extent of Rs. 1,26,153/-. For FY 2020-21 no such tax as claimed by the petitioner in her return of income has been deposited by the employer. Therefore, credit of TDS in respect of salary income is as claimed by the petitioner was not allowed. By virtue of scheme of Amalgamation under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 as approved by Honorable High Court of Gujarat vide order dated 14.10 2016, the SGSLold, PAN: AAJCSO174R got amalgamated with M/s Suzlon Structures Limited (PAN: AAICS1406R) (SSL) with appointed date as 31.03.2016. The resultant company M/s SSL (PAN: AAICS1406R) was renamed as M/s Suzion G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yer to deposit tax deducted at source from the salary income income of the petitioners. Therefore, the respondent could not have raised any demand against the petitioners in view of the provisions of section 205 of the Act read with Instruction No. 275 dated 01.06.2015 and Office Memorandum dated 11.03.2016 which read as under: Section 205: Bar against direct demand on assessee. Where tax is deductible at the source under [the foregoing provisions of this Chapter][ Substituted by Act 23 of 2004, Section 48, for certain words (w.e.f. 1.10.2004).], the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to which tax has been deducted from that income. Instruction No. 275/29/2014-IT-(B) SECTION 199 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE - CREDIT FOR TAX DEDUCTED - NON-DEPOSIT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE INSTRUCTION NO, 275/29/2014-T{B), DATED 1-6-2015 Grievances have been received by the Board from many taxpayers that in their cases the deductor has deducted tax at source from payments made to them in accordance with the provisions of Chapter-XVIT of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) but has failed to deposit the same into the Government a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TPS). 9. In view of the above provisions of law which is reiterated way back in 2015 by the Instruction No. 275 and again reiterated by Office Memorandum dated 11.03.2016, the respondent is unable to rectify the computer system to implement such Instruction and Office Memorandum which has resulted into inconvenience to the petitioners. 10. In view of the above facts, the impugned intimation issued under section 143 (1) of the Act and consequential demand raised upon the petitioners are liable to be quashed and set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to see that strict compliance of the provision of section 205 of the Act as well as Instruction issued by the CBDT are followed and necessary corrections be made in the software so as to see that no demand is raised in case of the deductee on account of failure to deposit the amount of Tax Deducted at Source by the deductor. The Instruction issued by the CBDT under section 119 of the Act are binding upon all the officers of the department including the computer center which is now almost doing the job of the Assessing Officer. The technology used cannot be made to cause inconvenience to the tax payers contrary to the provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
