Avni Dogra Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court considered a writ petition challenging an intimation dated 21.01.2022 issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, under which a demand of Rs.19,06,310/- had been raised against the petitioner. The demand arose because credit for TDS amounting to Rs.14,65,787/-, deducted from the petitioner’s salary by Kingfisher Airlines, the erstwhile employer, was not granted. The petition concerned Assessment Year 2011-12.
The petitioner contended that the issue was squarely covered by the Delhi High Court’s judgment dated 01.10.2024 in Satwant Singh Sanghera v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. The respondent’s Senior Standing Counsel was not in a position to dispute the position of facts and law advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
A preliminary objection was raised on territorial jurisdiction. The Revenue contended that the writ petition ought to have been filed at Bangalore because the petitioner’s Assessing Authority had subsequently shifted there. The petitioner explained that when the writ petition was filed on 17.04.2026, he was resident and assessee in Delhi, and that his Assessing Officer had changed to Bangalore only subsequently pursuant to his move to Bangalore. The Court rejected the objection, holding that when the return for AY 2011-12 was filed, the petitioner’s Assessing Authority was admittedly at Delhi and, importantly, the Assessing Authority was also at Delhi on the date when the petition was filed. The subsequent change of jurisdiction to Bangalore could not non-suit the petitioner on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
On merits, the Court observed that the respondent could perhaps have been justified in disallowing the TDS collected by Kingfisher Airlines because the amount had not been deposited by the deductor. However, the petitioner could not be blamed for the deductor’s failure and could not consequently be deprived of his legitimate right, in accordance with the principle laid down in Satwant Singh Sanghera v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed. The Court quashed and set aside the intimation dated 21.01.2022 to the extent that it related to non-grant of credit of TDS deducted by Kingfisher Airlines. The Court expressly confined the order to the amount deducted by Kingfisher Airlines and clarified that any other demand raised by the Assessing Officer would not be affected. The writ petition, along with the pending applications, was disposed of in those terms.
Cases Discussed
- Satwant Singh Sanghera v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., W.P.(C) 13765/2024, judgment dated 01.10.2024.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by way of intimation dated 21.01.2022 under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’), a demand of Rs.19,06,310/- was raised against the petitioner because the credit of TDS which Kingfisher Airlines (erstwhile employer) had deducted from the salary of the petitioner amounting to Rs.14,65,787/- was not given.
2. It is contended that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment dated 01.10.2024 of this Court rendered in W.P.(C) 13765/2024 Satwant Singh Sanghera v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
3. Mr.Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent was not in a position to dispute the position of facts and law as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. He however submitted that the jurisdiction of filing the writ petition is at Bangalore and not in Delhi, because the assessee’s Assessing Authority has not shifted to Bangalore.
4. In response to the preliminary objection, which Mr.Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel has raised, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner filed a writ petition on 17.04.2026, he was resident and assessee in Delhi. However, later, pursuant to the request of the petitioner, who has recently moved to Bangalore, his assessing officer has changed to Bangalore.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. So far as preliminary objection raised by Mr.Puneet Rai is concerned, we do not find any substance in the same, because when the assessee had filed return for the Assessment Year (2011-12), admittedly, the petitioner’s assessing authority was at Delhi.
7. That apart the day when the petition came to be filed, the Assessing Authority of the petitioner was at Delhi. Merely because subsequently, it has changed to Bangalore, he cannot be non-suited on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
8. Adverting to the merit of the case, we are of the view that the respondent could perhaps been justified in disallowing the amount of TDS which was collected by Kingfisher Airlines from the petitioner’s salary, as the same was not deposited by said deductor but the petitioner cannot be blamed for that and deprived of his legitimate right, as has been held by this Court in its judgment Satwant Singh Sanghera (supra).
9. We therefore allow the writ petition and quash and set aside the intimation dated 21.01.2022 to the extent it relates to the non-grant of credit of Tax Deducted at Source by the Kingfisher Airlines.
10. Needless to observe that our order shall confine to the amount which has been deducted by the Kingfisher Airlines and in case there is any other demand raised by the Assessing Officer, the same shall not be effected.
11. The instant petition, alongwith pending applications, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
