HC held that Revenue is to be definitely restrained in terms of Section 205 of the Act from enforcing any demand on the assessee-petitioner insofar as the demand with reference to the amount of tax which had been deducted by the tenant of the assessee in the present case, and assuming that the tenant had not remitted the amount to the Central Government. The only course open to the Revenue is to recover the amount from the very person who has deducted and not from the petitioner.
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Anusuya Alva
vs
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of Order- 9 June, 2005
Equivalent citations:
(2005) 197 CTR Kar 37,
2005 278 ITR 206 KAR,
2005 278 ITR 206 Karn
ORDER
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. Petitioner is an assessee under the IT Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). This is a peculiar case where the petitioner-assessee is challenging the enforcement of demand made at Annex.-H dt. 5th Dec., 2002, wherein it is indicated that on verification of the records by the authorities under the Act, it was found that income-tax arrears was due from the petitioner for the period as indicated therein, and the petitioner-assessee was called upon to make payment of the amount within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which coercive recovery proceedings would be initiated against the petitioner. The amounts mentioned in Annex.-H are as follows :
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
