Disposed

Satish Kumar Agarwal v. The Union of India

Telangana HC17 Apr 2025WP/10347/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions to Income Tax authorities to act against his tenant who deducted TDS on monthly rent without depositing it, depriving the petitioner of TDS credit for AYs 2022-23 to 2024-25. The department stated proceedings were initiated and the tenant penalized. The Court disposed of the petition, leaving the petitioner free to seek TDS credit before the concerned authority.

What the court decided

AI extract

Satish Kumar Agarwal Vs The Union of India — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

r i

13447¹

F It i h r a

E. E F I i b

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶7

THURSDAY,^{THE SEVENTEENTHDAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTI'E NARSING RAONANDIKONDA}

¶10

WRIT PETITI ON^NO:10347 F 2025

¶11

Between:

¶12

Satish Kumar^{Agaryval,s/o. Late AnirudhPrer1h3dAgarwa!' Aged about65} V3";" ii;; b,;.iness,^{nio. 3;:i;i/3;;a3/A' Edan Bash'Hvderabad}

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

l.TheUnionoflndia,MinistryofExternalAffairs,.RepresentedbyitsSecretary'' rtr'"",triiir""r., Centiat Secreiariat, Nev Delhi - 110004' 2. The Commissioner^{ot"i#o',r'"'iii-Ob-Si,fn"ome Tax Department, 9th Floor,}

¶16

i.i-ro*"it, Masabtank' Hvderabad District -- ^.

¶17

3 rhe Additionrr^{co.mittio'nii,l1;".qq} 1,x.^{(TDS) Department'4th Floor'} l.T.Towers,^{Masabtank. Hyderabad lJlstrlcl'}

¶18

4 J sharath^{aabu, sro.'3ri.'l-iJr;lilg;Ag;} +gt^{M.aio1occ' Business' R/o} - is:s;'9-9, 1ts-as-o and isoi, Afzalgun'j, Hvderabad - t, ...*rr"oNDENTS

¶19

Petition^{under Artigle226 of lhe Qonstitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{statedin the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Courtmay be} pleasedtoissueth.edirectionordirections,6oreparticularlyinthenatureofwrit of Mandamus^{declar:ingthe action of the Respgndent No'2 and 3 in not taking any} action against^{RespondentNo 4 inspite sf reprepentationsdt 28 06 2024'} 02.08.2023^{and 24.07'zIz3,vwithrespectto not coltecting the TDS amounts'} deducted by^{the 4th Respondent for the monthly rents of premisesbearing} M.No.15-9-499,^{15-9-450 and 450/1' situatedat Afzalgunj' Hyder-abad and giving} credit for^{the same in the account of the pqtitioner with pAN.No.ACEPA22B0J for} the assessment Year' 2022-23,^{2023-24, 2024'25,total amountingto} Rs.4,59,000i-^{as illegal' ar} bitrary and^{consequentlydirect the Respondent No'2} and 3 to take^{appropriate a} ction, as^{per law, against4th Respondentby giving the} urce for an^{amountof Rs 4,59,000/- with respect to the} credit of^{tax deductedat so}

{

I I

t [: Il I

TDS amounts. d -',lt r ted by the 4th Respondent for the nronthly rents of premises bearing M.No.15-0-^{,19, '15-9-450} and 4SOl1, situated at Afzalgsunj; Hyderabad, in the interest of jus trc;r

¶27

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶28

Petition unde riection 1sl cpc praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed r s . pport of the petition, the Hish court may be lrfeased to direc! the Respondqnts 2t I rrd 3 to give credit for an amgunt af Rs.4O 000/. with respect to the TDS amountr . deducted by the 4th Respondent for thr: rrlonthly rents ef premises bearing Ir Nq 15-9-499, 15_9-400 and 41el1 sifuaterJ at Afzalgqni, Hyderabad for th: f ranciat yeprs 2022-23,2023_24 and 20?4_2!) in the lncanq Tax returns of the f)e tioner with pAN,No AcEpA2280J, in the irrterest of justice,

¶29

Counsel for the Peti'rioner: SRI SHARAD SANGHT Counsef for the Res,rondent No.1: SRI_p-StiASHi K|RAN, SC FOR 9ENTRAL

¶30

counsel fo1*rs ftssp,6ndenr Nos.2 u fSXIi *oMA KRtsHNA REDDy, sc FoR lrD

¶31

counsel for tfte Resl r:ndent No.4: -.

¶32

The Court r4qde thra oilawing: ORDER

¶33

THE HON'B LE^{SRIJUSTICEP.SAMKOSHY}

¶34

AND

¶35

THE HON'B^{LE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA}

¶36

WRIT PE^{TITIONNo.1O347o9 2025}

¶37

ORDER: @et^{Hon'bteSn JustbeP'Som Koshul}

¶38

HeardMr'SharadSanghi,learnedCounselforthepetitioner, Mr.P.Shashi^{Kiran, learned counsel for the respondentNo' 1 and} Mr.A.Rama^{Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Income} Tax Department^{appearingfor the respondentNo'2' perused the} record.

¶39

The instant^{writ petitionhas been hled by the petitionerseeking} for an appropriate^{direction against the respondentNos'2 & 3 for} taking steps^{against the respondent No'4 who was a tenant to the} petitioner's Premises'

¶40

3.Thedisputewasthatthetenantwaspayingtherentafter deducting^{the TDS amount,but the amount so deductedby way of} TDS was^{not being deposited to the Income Tax Department by the 4th} respondent^{and in the process' the petitioner was not able to take} appropriate^{credits in respectof the TDS amount'} Iearned^{Standing Counsel for the} 4 Mr.A.Rama^{Krishna ReddY,} ald submits^{that uPoncomPlaint} department^{enteredapPearance} being received^{from the petitioner, appropriate Steps and proceedings}

I I

pa6e2of3

)_-- '... 1 .

.....,

ir I

has been dr e.',r I r against the 4th respondent ar-td ir r turn the 4t} - respondent f :€rs :LIso been penalized for having nrrt rt.mitted the tax deducted b.y lr n tiom the rent alnount payable ro the pr:titioner. 5. Given _lrr fact that the department has ah.eady initiated proceedings arrc r'rave also penalized the 4rh respon<1e nr, the grievance of the petitior ( r: ; rs such stands substantially redresseci. So far as the claim of cred t ), the petitioner in respect of TDS de ducted by the tenant is conce r: L:d, the petitioner would be at libenl, tr. approach the concerned Inctrr : Tax Authority strictly in accorclanr:e uith law. 6' Accordingll , this writ petition stands disposed of. .rhere sha_rl be no order as 1.o co r s.

¶47

As a serlrrr I miscellaneous applications pencling if any, shall

¶48

stand closed

¶49

SD/- K. AMMAJI

¶50

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶51

//TRUE COPYII ,3, I

¶52

To ) SE(::TION OFFTCER 1 The Secreta ry i.Jnion Of lndia, Min istry of Externa tWrra irs, Irlorth Block Central Seorel lriat, New Delhi _ 1.1 0004

¶53

2 The Comm sst a The l.T.Towers, Additionltu'li, al rrer sabtank, Hyderabad Distiict.of ,lncome Tax (TDS), lncome Tax Departr rent, 9th Floor, 4. J. Sharathl.T.Towbrs tlaLM-. ( =abtAnk, lommissioner^Hyderabad lncome Tax (TDS) District Departm€ nt, 4th Floor 15-9499 15 0 Business, R/o

¶54

A One CC to il it 6. One CC to {) r_il 7. One CCto{ RI IoPUC 8 Two CD Co1:ier ;1Hnr{a3,ffi:$$d.{rjlffi ;; ,cl

PSK. SS ?ma

HIGH COUR'I'

DATED:1 7^t{),r112025

¶59

ORDER

¶60

WP.No.1034i of 2025

¶61

,'"
.L 6
J
D2
(-) 2 I tii' 2[25
)
.+
)/
t
'<:..: T cgi19

¶62

DISPOSING 0F THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CCISTS

¶63

?l"tc.. "yo\q"q

Satish Kumar Agarwal v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Satish Kumar Agarwal v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

ServiceNow Software Development India Private Limited Vs Assessment Unit

Mudivarthi Murali Mohan Vs The State of Telengana

Sri P. K. Bhomia, Vs Union of India, Rep. by Secretary (Revenue)

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyd Vs M/S. Sushee Infra Pvt. Ltd, Hyd

Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii, Hyd Vs M/S. Sujana Metals Ltd, Hyd

Prl Commr of Income Tax [Tds] Hyderabad Vs M/S Hcc-Meil-Ncc-Wpil [Jv] Hyderabad