Dinendra Biswas Vs Union of India (Gauhati High Court)
Gauhati High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Dinendra Biswas vs. Union of India, setting aside income tax demand notices amounting to ₹8,40,370 issued to a former Judge of the High Court and Upa-Lokayukta, Assam. The court underscored that a taxpayer cannot be compelled to re-pay tax already deducted and deposited by the employer, even if such deductions fail to reflect in Form 26AS.
Background of the Dispute
The petitioner, Mr. Dinendra Biswas, served as a Judge of the Gauhati High Court from October 1997 to August 2007, and subsequently as Upa-Lokayukta, Assam, from April 2010 to August 2012. Throughout these tenures, advance income tax, in the form of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS), was regularly withheld from his salary and pay bills by his respective employers for the financial years 2008-2009, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014. These amounts, as claimed by the petitioner, were duly credited to the account of the Income Tax Department.
The crux of the dispute arose when these advance taxes, despite being deducted, were not reflected in Form 26AS (TDS/TRACES) due to what the petitioner described as an inadvertence on the part of the employers. As a direct consequence, the Income Tax Department did not grant credit for these TDS amounts when computing Mr. Biswas’s income tax for the specified financial years, leading to the issuance of demand notices. The total demanded amount stood at ₹8,40,370, broken down as follows:
- FY 2008-2009: ₹1,35,550.00
- FY 2010-2011: ₹3,16,010.00
- FY 2011-2012: ₹2,72,680.00
- FY 2012-2013: ₹60,000.00
- FY 2013-2014: ₹56,130.00
Aggrieved by these demands, Mr. Biswas submitted explanations to the tax authorities, along with Form 16AS and Certificates of Deduction issued by the Gauhati High Court and the Office of the Lokayukta, Assam. He requested that the deducted amounts be credited and adjusted against his tax liabilities for the respective years. However, the Income Tax Department reportedly insisted on re-payment, refusing to acknowledge the prior deductions.
