Disposed

Shantanu Awasthi v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 67(1), Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC8 May 2024W.P.(C)/3518/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioners faced income-tax demands for assessment years despite TDS being deducted from salary but not deposited by the employer. Following the CBDT Office Memorandum of 11 March 2016, the Court disposed of the petitions on the same lines as orders already granting stay and restraining coercive action, and directed deletion of the outstanding TDS demands.

What did the court decide?

Stay of demands granted, no coercive action, and respondents directed to delete all TDS demands reflected against the petitioners on the ITBA portal.

Shantanu Awasthi Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 67(1), Delhi & Ors. — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~36-38

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3518/2023 SHANTANU AWASTHI ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Smiti Verma, Adv.

¶3

versus

¶4

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 67(1), DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, JSC & Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vinish Phoghat, SPC for resp./ UOI.

¶5

37 + W.P.(C) 3545/2023 SIDDHARATH ARORA ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Smiti Verma, Adv.

¶6

versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 67 (1)DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr. Rishabh Nangia, Mr. Ashvini Kumar & Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advs.

¶7

38 + W.P.(C) 3547/2023 ANKIT VIJ ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Smiti Verma, Adv.

¶8

versus INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr. Rishabh Nangia, Mr. Ashvini Kumar & Mr. Nikhil Jain,

¶9

This is a digitally signed order.

¶10

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 11:49:03

¶11

Advs.

¶12

Mr. Krishan Kumar Sharma, SPC with Mr. Anil Deolal, Adv. for Resp./UOI.

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶15

O R D E R % 08.05.2024

¶16

The writ petitioners are constrained to approach this Court pursuant to demands being imposed against them despite tax having been duly deducted from the salary which was earned in the concerned Assessment Years. The default in deposit of TDS is attributed to the inaction of the employer.

¶17

Pursuant to the earlier orders passed the respondents have, bearing in mind the Office Memorandum [“ OM ”] of the Central Board of Direct Taxes [“ CBDT ”] dated 11 March 2016, passed the following orders insofar as the writ petitioners in WP(C) 3545/2023 and 3547/2023 are concerned. Those orders are reproduced hereinbelow:

¶18

W.P.(C) 3545/2023 (Siddharth Arora)

¶19

“Sir/Madam/M/s.

¶20

Subject: Online service of Orders – Letter

¶21

Stay of demand in the case of Siddharth Arora PANAHEPA8010H for the A.Y. 2021-22-reg .

¶22

Kindly refer to your writ petition filed before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act consequent demand created for the A.Y. 2021-22 vide demand notice dated 18.09.2022 of Rs.12,76,564/- respectively issued by CPC, Bengaluru on the captioned subject.

¶23

In this connection, your petition before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been perused and it was found that you have drawn the salary for the concerned years i.e. A.Y. 2021-22 and

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 11:49:03

¶26

tax has been duly deducted but the same has not been deposited by the employer.

¶27

In view of the above facts and circumstances and after taking into account of the CBDT office memorandum and further examining the legality and validity of the non-deposit of demand by the employer, your petition for stay of demand has been perused and after examination stay is hereby granted and demand is restrained by holding no coercive action is being taken against the demands for the A.Y. 2021-22.”

¶28

W.P.(C) 3547/2023 (Ankit Vij)

¶29

“Sir/Madam/M/s.

¶30

Subject: Online service of Orders – Letter

¶31

Stay of demand in the case of Ankit Vij, PAN: AHMPV9163C for the A.Y. 2020-21 & 2021-22-reg .

¶32

Kindly refer to your writ petition filed before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act consequent demand created for the A.Y. 2020-21 & 2021-22 vide demand notice dated 03.02.2022 and 28.03.2022 of Rs.6,21,430/& Rs. 1,95,600/- respectively issued by CPC, Bengaluru on the captioned subject.

¶33

In this connection, your petition before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been perused and it was found that you have drawn the salary for the concerned years i.e. A.Y. 2020-21 & 2021-22 and tax has been duly deducted but the same has not been deposited by the employer.

¶34

¶35

We note that the CBDT’s OM of 11 March 2016 seeks to address this very issue. Since the deduction of TDS from the salaries of the petitioners is not disputed, we find no justification for the demands being shown as outstanding against the writ petitioners.

¶36

We, accordingly, dispose of these three writ petitions on lines

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 11:49:03

¶39

identical to those which have been adopted by the Assessing Officer in WP(C) 3545/2023 and 3547/2023.

¶40

We additionally call upon the respondents to ensure that all demands with respect to TDS as currently reflected against the petitioners on the Income Tax Business Application portal are consequently deleted.

¶41

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

¶42

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

¶43

MAY 08, 2024/ kk

¶44

This is a digitally signed order.

¶45

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 11:49:03

Shantanu Awasthi v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 67(1), Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantanu Awasthi v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 67(1), Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarpal Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sarpal Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Raj Babu Dvivedy and Others Vs Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Arun Srivastav Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University and Ors.

Sanjiv Kumar Vashist Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Trio Security and Intelligence Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sh. Sunil Kumar & Anr.

National Federaion of Farmers Procurement Processing & Retailing Cooperativs of India Ltd. Nacop Vs Union of India & Ors. & Anr.

Lord Krishna Tradexim LLP (Pan AABCL4428K) (as Successor in Interest of Lord Krishna Tradexim (P) L Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(1) Delhi & Ors.

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-1 Vs M/S Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited

Dollar Gulati Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Makhija Vs Union of India (through Secretary) and Ors.

M/S Pooja Trading Co. Vs Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv) & Anr.

Ashwani Kumar Gupta Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 17, & Anr.

Sunita Goel Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Circle 1, Delhi