Tarun Sabharwal through Attorney Holder Rajneesh Rahej v. Ito, Ward 72(2), Delhi
Case brief
What is this about?
Keywords: TDS; non-deposit of TDS by deductor; recovery of employer's TDS default from employee; Kingfisher Airlines Ltd.; salaried taxpayer; CBDT circular dated 21.09.2023; demand adjusted against subsequent Assessment Years; legality of adjustment of demand across AYs; writ of Certiorari/mandamus; conversion of writ petition into representation to Assessing Officer; eight-week timeline; interim bar on acting upon demand; relied on Sanjay Sudan v. ACIT (NC: 2023/DHC/001342, W.P.(C) No. 6610/2019); AY 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13; demand Rs 28,72,252/-; ITO Ward 72(2) Delhi; High Court of Delhi; W.P.(C) 17966/2025.
What did the court decide?
Petition disposed of with directions to the AO: decide the petition as the petitioner's representation within eight weeks per CBDT instructions read with this Court's Sanjay Sudan judgment, examine whether the demand could have been adjusted against subsequent AYs, convey the decision to the petitioner, and meanwhile not act upon the impugned demand; follow-up action per law if the decision favours the petitioner, with liberty to pursue legal remedies thereafter. Pending application disposed of as infructuous.