Yatish Saxena Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Yatish Saxena and quashed demands raised for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 to the extent they arose from non-grant of credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) deducted by Kingfisher Airlines, the petitioner’s erstwhile employer.
The petitioner contended that demands of Rs. 4,52,188/- for AY 2009-10, Rs. 2,04,369/- for AY 2010-11, Rs. 49,48,730/- for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 26,29,922/- for AY 2012-13, including interest, had been raised through intimations under Sections 143(1) and 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The demands arose because credit for TDS deducted by Kingfisher Airlines from the petitioner’s salary was not granted. The TDS amounts involved were Rs. 1,08,367/- for AY 2009-10, Rs. 10,88,879/- for AY 2010-11, Rs. 13,57,302/- for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 7,14,967/- for AY 2012-13.
The petitioner submitted 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 Revenue’s counsel was not in a position to dispute the legal position stated by the petitioner.
On merits, the Court observed that the respondent could perhaps have been justified in disallowing the TDS collected by Kingfisher Airlines because the deductor had not deposited the amount. 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.
The Court therefore allowed the writ petition and quashed and set aside the impugned demands for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 insofar as they related to non-grant of credit for TDS deducted by Kingfisher Airlines. The relief was expressly confined to the amounts deducted by Kingfisher Airlines. The Court clarified that any other demand raised by the Assessing Officer would remain unaffected.
The writ petition, along with the pending applications, was accordingly disposed of.
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 for the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 demands of Rs. 4,52,188/- (Ref No. 2010200910040512521T), Rs. 2,04,369/- (Ref No. 20172010101599218801), Rs. 49,48,730/- (Ref No. 2016201137049076722T) and Rs. 26,29,922/- (Ref No. 2013201237013914932T) including interest have been raised by way of intimations under Sections 143(1) and 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) against the petitioner because the credit of TDS which Kingfisher Airlines (erstwhile employer) had deducted from the salary of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,08,367/- for AY 2009-10, Rs. 10,88,879/- for AY 2010-11, Rs. 13,57,302/- for AY 2011-12, and Rs. 7,14,967/-for AY 2012-13 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. Ruchir Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent, was not in a position to dispute the legal position of law as stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties.
5. Adverting to the merits of the case, we are of the view that the Respondent could perhaps have 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 judgement Satwant Singh Sanghera (supra).
6. We therefore allow the writ petition and quash and set aside the impugned demands for the AY’s 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 to the extent they relate to the non-grant of credit of Tax Deducted at Source by the Kingfisher Airlines.
7. Needless to observe that our order shall confine to the amounts which have 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.
8. The instant petition, alongwith pending applications, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
