Case Law Details
Case Name : ACIT Vs Om Prakash Gattani (Guwahati High Court)
Appeal Number : Equivalent citations: 2000 242 ITR 638 Gauhati
Date of Judgement/Order : 04/01/2000
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Guwahati High Court
Sponsored
It would not be possible to proceed to recover the amount of tax from the assessee. The assessee cannot be doubly saddled with the tax liability. Deduction of tax at source is only one of the modes. Once this mode is adopted and by virtue of the statutory provisions the person responsible to deduct the tax at source deducts the amount, only that mode should be pursued for the purpose of recovery of tax liability and the assessee should not be subjected to other modes of recovery of tax by recovering the amount once again to satisfy the tax liability. It is, therefore, provided u/s 201 of the Income-tax Act that the person responsible to deduct the tax at source would be deemed to be an assessee in default in case he deducts the amount and fails to deposit it in the Government treasury. As observed earlier, the assessee has no control over such person who is responsible to deduct the income-tax at source, but fails to deposit the same in the Government treasury. In this light of the matter, in our view, the notices issued under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act to the bankers of the petitioner-respondent to satisfy the tax liability from the bank account of the petitioner-respondent are illegal. It is not that the Income-tax Department was helpless in the matter. The person responsible to deduct the tax at source would move into the shoes of the assessee and he would be deemed to be an assessee in default. Whatever process or coercive measures are permissible under the law would only be taken against such person and not the assessee.
Gauhati High Court
ACIT vs. Om Prakash Gattani
4 January, 2000
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Dear Pavithra Ji
Relief u/s 89(1) is given on arrear salary only when prescribed from 10 E is filled properly for filling the Form 10E you need to disclose that year salary in which arrear salary related
I received intimation u/s 143(1), where in my return of income for AY 2014-15 I have claimed Relief u/s- 89(1)for the payments of salary arrears received in year 2014, but the relief amount is not considered in intimation u/s 143. I have filed my IT Return through E-filing. Pls suggest me what should be done further.
I have received Demand from Income Tax which is already been paid. I have checked From NSDL site also challan is already matched. What to do in that case